T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 6th Civil Chamber Basis No: 2014/5641 Decision No: 2014/8167 Date: 19.06.2014
EVICTION DUE TO NON-RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT AT THE END OF THE 10-YEAR EXTENSION PERIOD (Regarding lease agreements concluded before the entry into force of the Law: for those where the ten-year extension period has not yet expired but the remaining period is less than five years, the law shall apply five years after its entry into force; for those where the ten-year extension period has already expired, the law shall apply two years after its entry into force.)
EVICTION OF THE LEASED PREMISES DUE TO EXPIRY OF TERM (Pursuant to Law No. 6098, at the end of the 10-year extension period, the lessor may terminate the contract without showing any reason, provided that they give notice at least three months before the end of each extension year following this period – The lawsuit shall be dismissed as the relevant article is not yet applicable to the subject immovable property in terms of duration.)
NON-RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Law No. 6098, at the end of the 10-year extension period, the lessor may terminate the contract without showing any reason, provided that they give notice at least three months before the end of each extension year following this period – The lawsuit shall be dismissed as the relevant article is not yet applicable to the subject immovable property in terms of duration.)
Relevant Articles: TCO Art. 327, 347; Law No. 6101, Provisional Art. 2.
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s counsel requested the eviction of the leased premises, stating that despite the notification sent to the defendant that the lease agreement would not be renewed, the defendant did not vacate the premises.
Pursuant to Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in residential and roofed workplace rentals, at the end of the 10-year extension period, the lessor may terminate the contract without showing any reason, provided that they give notice at least three months before the end of each extension year following this period.
However, the aforementioned article of law, regarding lease agreements provided in the last sentence of Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations before the entry into force of this Law, shall apply: five years after the entry into force for those where the ten-year extension period has not expired but the remaining period is less than five years; and two years after the entry into force for those where the ten-year extension period has already expired.
As of the date the lawsuit was filed, since the last sentence of Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 was not yet applicable and none of the other eviction grounds specified in the law were relied upon, the request must be dismissed.
LAWSUIT: Regarding the decision on the eviction lawsuit rendered by the local court, whose date and number are indicated above; the judgment was appealed by the defendant within the legal time limit with a request for a hearing. However, since the lawsuit is not subject to a hearing by its nature, the request for a hearing was rejected. All papers in the file were read and discussed:
DECISION: The dispute concerns the request for the eviction of the leased premises due to the expiry of the term. Upon the court’s decision to accept the lawsuit and evict the premises, the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s counsel.
The plaintiff’s counsel, in the lawsuit petition, requested the eviction of the premises on the grounds that, despite informing the defendant via a notary public notice dated 04.03.2013 that the lease agreement between the parties would end on 01.10.2013 and would not be renewed, the defendant did not vacate the premises. The defendant’s counsel argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit, stating that the application of the articles regulating lease law in the Turkish Code of Obligations was postponed until 01.07.2017 and that eviction could not be requested without stating a reason. The court decided to reject the lawsuit by taking into account Articles 327 and 347 of the Code of Obligations, as it was understood that a notice of termination was given six months before the expiry of the lease term as agreed in the contract.
The lease agreement relied upon in the lawsuit, dated 01.10.2003 and with a term of 10 years, pertains to premises belonging to the plaintiff leased to the defendant to be used as a dialysis clinic. Article 3 of the special conditions section of the contract stipulates: “The lease term is 10 years, and if a written notice of termination is not given six months before the expiry of the lease term, the lease agreement shall be extended for 1-year periods.” The leased premises, by its nature, is subject to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations regarding residential and roofed workplace rentals. Pursuant to Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in residential and roofed workplace rentals, unless the tenant gives notice at least fifteen days before the end of the fixed-term contract, the contract is deemed extended for one year under the same conditions. The lessor cannot terminate the contract based on the expiry of the contract term. However, at the end of the ten-year extension period, the lessor may terminate the contract without showing any reason, provided that they give notice at least three months before the end of each extension year following this period. Nevertheless, pursuant to Provisional Article 2 of the Law on the Entry into Force and Implementation of the Turkish Code of Obligations, this article shall apply five years after its entry into force for lease agreements where the ten-year extension period has not expired but the remaining period is less than five years; and two years after its entry into force for those where the ten-year extension period has already expired.
As of the date the lawsuit was filed (09.10.2013), since the last sentence of Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 was not yet applicable, and none of the eviction grounds written in Articles 350, 351, and 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations were relied upon, the request should have been dismissed. Rendering an eviction decision is contrary to procedure and the law.
The judgment must be reversed for this reason.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 19.06.2014 to ACCEPT the appeal objections, to REVERSE the judgment pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK) in consideration of Provisional Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, and to return the advance appeal fee to the appellant upon request.