T.C.
JUDGMENT
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2004/6-428
K. 2004/456
T. 29.9.2004
– EVACUATION ( Lease Agreement for Five Years and Three Months – Validity of the Eviction Commitment Signed One Year After the Lease Agreement was Signed and the Tenant Settled in the Leased Property / It Will Bind the Tenant’s Heirs)
– EVICTION UNDERTAKING (BINDING ALSO ON THE TENANT’S HEIRS – SIGNED ONE YEAR AFTER THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS AND THREE MONTHS WAS CONCLUDED AND THE TENANT MOVED INTO THE LEASED PROPERTY / VALIDITY)
– TRANSFER OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT (TO THE TENANT’S HEIRS – THE COMMITMENT GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT MUST BE VALID / IT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE ON THE EVICTION OF THE TENANT DUE TO THE VALID COMMITMENT) 2004/M. 272, 273, 275 6570/M. 7
SUMMARY : The lease agreement which is the basis of the cancellation of objection and eviction case is dated 01.10.1995 and lasts for five years and three months. The commitment given on 01.10.1996 after the written lease agreement was established and the tenant settled in the leased property is valid and binds the heirs of the tenant. Even if the transfer of the contract is accepted, it is necessary to decide on the evacuation of the lease due to the valid commitment, since the commitment given under the contract is valid.
LAWSUIT : At the end of the trial held due to the “cancellation of the objection, eviction” lawsuit between the parties; Upon the request of the plaintiff’s attorney for examination of the decision dated 08.08.2003 and numbered 2001/179 E. 2003/560 K., which was given by the Bandırma Civil Court of Peace on the rejection of the lawsuit, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued a decision dated 03.11.2003 and numbered 2003/7890-7961; ( …The lease agreement on which the lawsuit is based is dated 01.10.1995 and lasts for five years and three months. The lessor is the plaintiff, the lessee is O., the inheritor of the defendants, and it was signed by him. The written commitment subject to the enforcement proceedings is dated 01.10.1996 and bears the signature of the tenant. The signature was denied, and at the end of the examination, it was understood that the signature belonged to O., the heir of the defendants.
After the written lease agreement is established and the tenant has settled in the leased property, the commitment given on 01.10.1996 is valid and binds the heirs of the tenant. Even if the transfer of the contract is accepted, since the commitment given in connection with the contract is valid, it is necessary to decide on the evacuation of the lease due to the valid commitment, while the decision of rejection in writing is contrary to the procedure and the law, therefore, it is necessary to revoke the judgement… ) and the file was returned to its place, and at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision.
The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers was examined and after it was understood that the decision of resistance was appealed in due time and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION : According to the mutual claims and defences of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, and the reasons explained in the reversal decision, it is contrary to the procedure and the law to resist the previous decision, while the reversal decision of the special chamber, which was also adopted by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, should be complied with. Therefore, the decision to resist should be reversed.
CONCLUSION : It was unanimously decided on 29.09.2004 that the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s attorney are accepted and the decision of resisting should be reversed in accordance with Article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons stated in the special chamber reversal decision, and the pre-appeal fee should be returned if requested.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking