T.C. SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 6th Civil Chamber
File No: 2015/8957 E. Decision No: 2016/680 K.
REVIEWED JUDGMENT COURT: Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace DATE: 18/05/2015 NUMBER: 2014/1378 – 2015/514
The decision regarding the eviction lawsuit, whose date and number are written above and which was delivered by the local court, was appealed by the plaintiffs within the legal period. After reviewing all the documents in the file and considering the merits:
The lawsuit relates to a request for eviction due to the expiration of the ten-year extension period based on Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO). The court dismissed the case, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney.
According to the provision of Article 347/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) No. 6098, in residential and roofed workplace leases, the lessor cannot terminate the contract based on the expiration of the contract period. However, at the end of the ten-year extension period, the lessor may terminate the contract without giving any reason, provided that they give notice at least three months prior to the end of each subsequent extension year.
In accordance with Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101 on the Entry into Force and Application of the Turkish Code of Obligations, it was stipulated that TCO Article 347 (the last sentence of the first paragraph) would be applied:
-
Five years after the date the law entered into force, for lease contracts where the 10-year extension period had not yet expired but the remaining period was shorter than five years.
-
Two years after the date the law entered into force, for lease contracts where the 10-year extension period had already expired.
In the concrete case: The plaintiffs’ attorney requested the eviction of the leased property in the petition and the warning notice dated 15.07.2014, stating that the lease period exceeded 10 years and would not be renewed pursuant to TCO Article 347. The defendant’s attorney claimed a violation of the Constitution, arguing that considering the 10-year extension period, a lawsuit could not be filed before 2017 according to Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101, and sought the dismissal of the case. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that, taking into account the lease term, the two-year period specified in Provisional Article 2 should have been waited before the contract could be terminated with a notice given at least 3 months prior to the end of the extension year, and the lawsuit was filed without waiting for this period.
Pursuant to Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101 concerning the Entry into Force and Application of the TCO, TCO Article 347 would begin to apply as of 01.07.2014. As can be seen in the text of TCO Article 347, the notice must be given “…at least three months prior to the end of each subsequent extension year…” indicating that the three-month period provided in the law is a minimum period, and it is sufficient for the notice to be in the hands of the tenant three months before the end of the extension year. The rationale for the one-time postponement of the termination right granted by TCO Article 347 via Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101 for residential and roofed workplace leases is to prevent tenants from suffering loss or hardship and to prevent potential problems that might arise from the immediate application of TCO Article 347/1.
In the present case: The lease contract for the leased property is dated 01.12.1999 and is for a period of one year. According to the provision of TCO Article 347, since the tenant did not give notice at least fifteen days before the end of the one-year contract period (i.e., 01.12.2000), the contract was renewed year by year, and the ten-year extension period specified in the law expired on 01.12.2010. The last extension year ended on 01.12.2014, with respect to the date the lawsuit was filed. Notice was given on 25.07.2014, which is in compliance with the three-month notice period required by Law No. 6098.
For these reasons, since the notice served on 25.07.2014 was timely, a decision for the eviction of the leased property due to the termination of the lease contract should have been rendered. Therefore, the court’s decision to dismiss the case by citing Provisional Article 2 of the Law on the Entry into Force and Application of the TCO No. 6101 is incorrect.
The judgment must be reversed for this reason.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections are accepted, and pursuant to Article 428 of the Law on Civil Procedure (HUMK), in view of Provisional Article 3 added to the Law on Civil Procedure (HMK) No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the judgment is REVERSED by UNANIMOUS VOTE on 08.02.2016, with the prepaid appeal fee to be returned to the appellant upon request.