6th Civil Chamber Basis No: 2015/8957 Decision No: 2016/680
JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW COURT: Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace DATE: 18/05/2015 NUMBER: 2014/1378 – 2015/514
The decision regarding the eviction lawsuit rendered by the local court, whose date and number are indicated above, having been appealed by the plaintiffs within the legal time limit; all documents in the file were read and discussed:
The lawsuit concerns the request for eviction due to the expiry of the ten-year extension period based on Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCC). The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit, and the judgment was appealed by the counsel for the plaintiffs.
Pursuant to Article 347/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in residential and roofed workplace rentals, the lessor cannot terminate the contract solely based on the expiry of the contract period. 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.
Pursuant to Provisional Article 2 of the Law on the Entry into Force and Implementation of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6101, it is stipulated that regarding lease agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Law: for those where the 10-year extension period provided in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Article 347 of the TCO has not yet expired but the remaining period is less than five years, the law shall apply five years after its entry into force; and for those where the ten-year extension period has already expired, the law shall apply 2 years after its entry into force.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff’s counsel requested the eviction of the leased premises in the lawsuit petition and the legal notice dated 15.07.2014, stating that the lease term had exceeded 10 years and would not be renewed pursuant to Article 347 of the TCO. The defendant’s counsel argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming unconstitutionality and asserting that based on Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101 regarding the 10-year extension period, a lawsuit could not be filed before the year 2017. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the 2-year period specified in Provisional Article 2 must be awaited to terminate the contract—provided that notice is given at least 3 months before the end of the extension year—and the lawsuit was filed before this period elapsed.
Pursuant to Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101, Article 347 of the TCO shall begin to be applied as of 01.07.2014. As seen in the text of Article 347, it is stated that the notice must be made “…at least three months before the end of each extension year…”. It is understood from the regulation of the law that the three-month period is a minimum duration, and it is sufficient for the notification to be in the tenant’s possession three months before the end of the extension year. The reason for the one-time postponement of the termination possibility granted under Article 347 regarding residential and roofed workplace lease agreements through Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101 is to prevent tenants from suffering loss or victimization and to prevent potential problems that may arise as a result of the immediate implementation of Article 347/1.
In the concrete case: The lease agreement for the premises has a starting date of 01.12.1999 and is for a duration of one year. Pursuant to Article 347 of the TCO, since the tenant did not give notice at least fifteen days before the end of the one-year contract term (i.e., 01.12.2000), the agreement was renewed year by year, and the ten-year extension period specified in the law expired on 01.12.2010. The final extension year, relative to the date the lawsuit was filed, ended on 01.12.2014, and the notification was made on 25.07.2014, which is three months in advance, in accordance with Law No. 6098. For the reasons explained, since the notification served on 25.07.2014 was within the required time limit, the eviction of the premises should have been decided due to the termination of the lease agreement. It was not correct to dismiss the lawsuit based on Provisional Article 2 of Law No. 6101.
The judgment must be reversed for this reason.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 08.02.2016 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.