In practice, it is observed that more than one (two or more) lease agreements are signed between the lessor and the lessee for various reasons. Generally, the low-value lease agreement is submitted to the tax office in order to pay less tax, while the high value lease agreement is actually implemented between the parties. The Court of Cassation considers the lease agreement prepared to be submitted to the tax office as collusive, whereas the high value lease agreement is considered valid. The Court of Cassation has determined that there is no actual and legal logic for the tenant to sign a lease agreement with a higher price, and therefore, the agreement signed with a higher price is not collusive, but valid.
It should also be noted that in cases where there are two or more lease agreements, the tenant-debtor cannot assert the claim that the agreements are collusive in the enforcement court, unless the tenant-debtor denies the signature. Because, the debtor who does not object to the signature is deemed to have accepted the lease agreement and the rental price which is the basis of the proceedings.
The precedent decisions of the Court of Cassation regarding the problems encountered in case of more than one lease agreement are given below.
THE HIGHER PRICE OF TWO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE SAME DATE IS VALID
It is not a matter of dispute that there are two separate lease agreements between the parties for the same immovable property, dated 01.06.2012 for 5 years, with a monthly rent of 3.500 TL and a monthly rent of 5.250 TL, and that the signatures on the agreements belong to the parties. The dispute is about which contract is in accordance with the real will of the parties. The defendant claims that the contract with the lower price was signed due to tax payment. The plaintiff did not deny the signature of the defendant against the lease agreement of 5.250 TL per month. Considering that the plaintiff-tenant has no valid reason for signing the high-priced lease agreement, it is understood that the low-priced agreement was issued for submission to the tax office and is collusive. While the dispute should be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the lease agreement with a value of 5,250 TL, which is understood to have been arranged in accordance with the real will of the parties, it was not deemed correct to establish a judgement by valuing the agreement with a value of 3,500 TL on written grounds, and it required a reversal (Court of Cassation 3HD – Decision: 2019/5336).
The first dispute between the parties is about which of the contracts, one of which is 2.750,00 TL per month and the other is 750,00 TL per month, is in accordance with the real will of the parties. After the contract submitted by the plaintiff where the monthly rent is determined as 2.750,00 TL, it is not in accordance with the ordinary course of life to issue a second contract where the monthly rent is determined as 750,00 TL, and to reduce the rent to this extent, without any reason. It is understood that the contract with a monthly rent of 750,00 TL is collusive for a reason other than determining the rental price. In this case, the dispute must be resolved in accordance with the lease agreement of 2.750,00 TL, which is in accordance with the real will of the parties. Since it is accepted that the contract in accordance with the real will of the parties is a contract with a monthly rent of 2.750,00 TL, the defendant’s claim that some months are paid over 700,00 TL does not show that the monthly rent is this amount (Court of Cassation 6th HD – Decision: 2012/9162).
It is accepted by the parties that the lease agreement dated 05.11.2012 with a starting date of 05.11.2012 and a rent of 4.000,00 TL was signed after the lease agreement with a rent of 8.000,00 TL. The dispute between the parties is on which of the agreements dated 05.11.2012 with a starting date of 05.11.2012 and a monthly rent of 8.000,00 TL and a monthly rent of 4.000,00 TL for the same immovable property should be considered. In the second contract dated 05.11.2012, there is no annotation that the first contract was terminated or terminated, and it is contrary to the ordinary course of life that the monthly rent was reduced from 8.000,00 TL to 4.000,00 TL at an exorbitant rate after the first contract was made. In the face of all this existing situation, it is understood that the lease agreement relied on by the defendant is organised for a reason other than determining the rental price and is collusive. While the dispute should be resolved in accordance with the lease agreement dated 05.11.2012 and with a monthly rent of 8.000,00 TL, it is not correct to make a written decision based on the collusive lease agreement (Court of Cassation 6th HD – Decision: 2015/422).
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking