“Pursuant to the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), a landlord may receive a maximum of three months’ rent as a security deposit. The relevant article of the TCO titled ‘Security provided by the tenant’ is as follows:”
“ARTICLE 342- If an obligation to provide security is imposed on the tenant in the lease of residential and roofed business premises, this security may not exceed three months’ rent. If it is agreed that money or valuable papers shall be provided as security, the tenant shall deposit the money into a time-deposit savings account and the valuable papers into a bank, not to be withdrawn without the consent of the lessor. The bank may return the securities only with the consent of both parties, or upon the finalization of execution proceedings, or based on a finalized court judgment.”
T.R. COURT OF CASSATION 3rd CIVIL CHAMBER
Basis No: 2017/1898
Decision No: 2017/3140
Date: 15.03.2017
“LEGAL PRECEDENT”
COURT: Civil Court of Peace
TYPE OF LAWSUIT: Action for Annulment of Objection (İtirazın İptali)
JUDGMENT: Following the trial conducted by the local court, the judgment rendered for the acceptance of the main and merged lawsuits was appealed by the counsels of the parties:
D E C I S I O N
The Dispute: The plaintiff tenant claimed the return of a 3,800.00 TL security deposit (güvence bedeli) after vacating the property before the end of the term. The defendant landlord objected, citing a contract clause requiring three months’ rent as compensation for failure to provide timely notice of termination. In the merged case, the landlord requested the unpaid rent until the property was re-leased, deducting the deposit from the total.
Legal Evaluation: Pursuant to the principle of sanctity of contract (ahde vefa), parties must adhere to the terms of the agreement. Unless there is a justified reason, the tenant is bound by the contract term. If the tenant terminates the contract early and unjustly, they are liable to compensate the landlord for the resulting loss.
Pursuant to Article 325 of the TCO: “If the tenant returns the leased property without complying with the contract term or notice period, the obligations arising from the lease agreement continue for a reasonable period during which the property could be re-leased under similar conditions.”
In the concrete case, the expert report determined the reasonable period for re-leasing to be two months. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the rent of these two months as compensation. Since the landlord had already satisfied this two-month rent claim by setting it off against the security deposit (depozito bedelinden mahsup), the tenant’s claim for the return of the deposit in the main case is not justified. Consequently, both the main and merged lawsuits should have been dismissed.
CONCLUSION: It was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED on 15.03.2017 to REVERSE (BOZULMASINA) the judgment of the local court.