Pursuant to Article 325 of the Code of Obligations, if a tenant vacates the premises before the expiry of the term specified in the lease contract, the tenant remains liable for the rent for a reasonable period (makul süre)—representing the landlord’s loss—until the property is re-leased. The “reasonable period” refers to the duration within which the property could be re-leased under normal market conditions. Factors such as the property’s features and location are significant. For instance, if a tenant signs a 1-year contract but vacates after 9 months, they are, as a rule, liable for the remaining 3 months’ rent. However, if the property’s location and features allow it to be re-leased within 1 month, the tenant is only liable for 1 month’s rent. Both under the Code of Obligations and the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, while the tenant is liable for the landlord’s loss until the end of the term, the landlord also has a duty to mitigate the loss.
A tenant may vacate by providing a written notice to the landlord at least 15 days before the expiry of a fixed-term lease (TCO Art. 347). Such notice is valid only if made in writing (TCO Art. 348). If the tenant fails to provide this 15-day notice, the lease agreement is deemed extended for one year under the same conditions. However, the landlord cannot terminate based solely on the expiry of the term; the landlord may only terminate without cause at the end of a 10-year extension period, provided a 3-month prior notice is given before the end of each subsequent extension year.
T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 3rd CIVIL CHAMBER
Basis No: 2017/782 Decision No: 2017/256 Date: 23.01.2017 “Case Precedent”
SUMMARY: In cases where the tenant unilaterally terminates the lease and vacates the premises before the term ends, the tenant is liable for the landlord’s loss until the end of the term. However, pursuant to Article 52 of the TCO (Art. 44 of the former CO), the landlord must not cause an increase in the damage. The landlord’s loss consists of the rent for the period the property remained vacant until it could be re-leased under similar conditions.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: The court must determine, through an on-site expert examination (keşif ve bilirkişi incelemesi), how long it would take to re-lease the property under the same conditions by considering its type, features, location, and regional demand. It is not sufficient to rely on an abstract 2-month “standard” without a concrete expert report suitable for judicial review.
(CLOSED) 6th CIVIL CHAMBER | Basis No: 2016/9799 | Decision No: 2016/6337
“Case Precedent”
LEGAL ANALYSIS: Although Article 18 of the lease agreement stipulates that “if the tenant vacates before the term expires, the rent for the remaining months shall become due (muaccel),” this is a penal clause (cezai şart). However, even in the presence of such a clause, the landlord’s loss is limited to the reasonable period required to re-lease the property. Reaching a decision without a technical expert report on the reasonable period is legally erroneous.
DISSENTING OPINION: The dissenting judge argued that since the parties explicitly agreed on a penal clause for early termination, the court should have ruled for the rent of all remaining months as stipulated in the contract.
6th CIVIL CHAMBER | Basis No: 2016/931 | Decision No: 2016/2494
“Case Precedent”
LEGAL ANALYSIS: It is not possible for a judge to determine the “reasonable period” solely based on discretionary power (takdir hakkı). This matter must be determined through an expert examination. Furthermore, if another court case is already pending regarding the determination of this period, the court must wait for that judgment to become final (bekletici mesele).