3rd Civil Chamber 2017/6483 E. , 2019/2527 K. ‘Case Law Text’
COURT : MAGISTRATE LAW COURT ‘…
…
… In the Turkish Code of Obligations, residential and roofed workplace leases are regulated under Article 339 and the following articles. Termination due to necessity is regulated among the reasons arising from the lessor, which is one of the ways of termination of residential or roofed workplace lease agreements through litigation, and according to Art. 350/1 of the TCO, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit within one month starting from the date to be determined by complying with the termination period and the periods stipulated for the notice of termination in accordance with the general provisions regarding the lease in the case of indefinite term agreements or at the end of the term in the case of fixed-term agreements, if the lessor is obliged to use the leased property for himself, his spouse, his spouse, his descendants, his ascendants or other persons who are obliged to take care of him by law. Again, according to Article 355/1 of the TCO, when the lessor evacuates the leased property for the purpose of necessity, the lessor may not rent the leased property to anyone other than the former lessee unless three years have passed without just cause, and according to Article 355/3 of the TCO, if the lessor acts contrary to these provisions, the lessor is obliged to pay compensation to the former lessee not less than one year’s rent paid in the last lease year.
When evaluated in this context, in the concrete case, a contract was made between the parties for a 10-year roofed workplace lease with a start date of 01.12.2007, and the defendant issued a notice dated 28/06/2011 and notified through a notary public that the lease agreement would not be renewed as the immovable would be used as a workplace, and the plaintiff was requested to evacuate the immovable six months after the notification of the notice. Accordingly, taking into account the above explanations; the leased, according to the statement of the plaintiff, was evacuated spontaneously on 01/01/2012 after the notification of the notice, and since there is no evacuation case filed by the defendant due to the need and there is no evacuation by applying the court decision issued as a result of this evacuation case, the compensation conditions regulated in Article 355 have not occurred. In this case, while the court should reject the lawsuit, it was not deemed correct to decide to accept it as written, and it required a reversal.