Summary:
The plaintiffs’ claim is based on a printout of an email allegedly sent by the defendant to Muharrem, one of the plaintiffs, stating: “…I moved into the house on May 1, 2011, which is 15 months at 7,500 TL. Accordingly, my rent payment period ends on August 30, 2012. I need to pay you rent as of September 1, 2012. I would appreciate it if you could send me an account number for the payment…” and a document titled “Delivery Report” dated August 27, 2013, signed by Ö. Y., whom the defendant claims is his father-in-law, regarding the delivery of the plaintiffs’ residence to the plaintiffs’ attorney. According to Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure, written or printed texts, deeds, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, video or sound recordings, and electronic data and similar information carriers suitable for proving the facts in dispute are accepted as documents.
Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court of Appeals
6th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2014/1637
Decision No: 2014/11938
Date of Decision: 5.11.2014
The decision of the local court regarding the lawsuit for the annulment of the objection, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the plaintiffs within the prescribed time limit. All the documents in the file were read and considered. The lawsuit concerns the annulment of the objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of rent arrears and a claim for compensation for denial of enforcement. The court decided to dismiss the case, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney. In the petition, the plaintiffs’ attorney summarized that their clients own the property located at G..C./…../ …..No:…./…. The plaintiffs stated that they rented the property located in Antalya to the defendant as a residence on January 1, 2011, for a monthly rent of 650.00 TL under a verbal lease agreement; that the defendant-tenant sent an email to the email address of the plaintiff M. S. on June 30, 2012, stating that he had moved into the house on May 1, 2011, and requested a bank account number to pay 15 months’ rent of 7,500.00 TL; however, he did not pay the rent; that an enforcement proceeding was initiated against the defendant on December 20, 2012, through Antalya 15th Enforcement Directorate, file number 2013/2759, seeking the collection of 13,600 TL, the remaining rent debt after deducting 2,000 TL for renovation costs from the 24 months of unpaid rent from the beginning of the rental relationship to the date of the enforcement; and that the defendant objected to the enforcement, claiming that he did not owe the debt. In the email sent, the plaintiff explicitly acknowledged the existence of a rental relationship and outstanding rent, stating that the defendant’s objection was unjust and malicious, and requested the annulment of the objection and a ruling for compensation for denial of execution. The defendant’s lawyer, in summary, argued that there was no rental relationship between their client and the plaintiffs, that there was no written rental agreement, and that their client did not write the email mentioned in the lawsuit, thus requesting the dismissal of the case. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
The dispute concerns whether a rental relationship exists between the parties. According to Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code, unless otherwise stipulated by law, each party is obligated to prove the existence of the facts upon which they base their claim. According to this provision, the landlord must prove the rental relationship and the terms of the contract.
Based on the annual rent amount claimed by the plaintiffs, Article 200 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 requires proof of the contract through written documentation. The plaintiffs-landlords were unable to present any written documents and relied on a printout of an email they claimed was sent by the defendant to Muharrem, stating, “…I moved into the house on May 1, 2011, which is 15 months at 7,500 TL. Accordingly, my rent payment period ends on August 30, 2012. I need to pay you rent as of September 1, 2012. I would appreciate it if you could send me an account number for the payment…” and a document titled “delivery report” dated August 27, 2013, signed by Ö. Y., whom the defendant claims is his father-in-law, stating that the plaintiffs’ residence was delivered to the plaintiffs’ attorney. (Code of Civil Procedure) According to Article 199 of the law, written or printed texts, documents, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, video or sound recordings, as well as data in electronic form and similar information carriers suitable for proving the facts in dispute, are accepted as documents. Article 202 of the same law states that “In cases where proof by document is mandatory, witnesses may be heard if there is initial evidence. Initial evidence is a document that, while not sufficient to fully prove the legal transaction in question, makes the said legal transaction probable and has been given or sent by the person against whom the claim is made or their representative.”
In this case, the court should have considered whether the email and delivery receipt relied upon by the plaintiff could be accepted as initial evidence within the framework of the provisions stated by the court, and if the conditions were met, should have given the plaintiff the opportunity to prove their claim with witnesses, and then rendered a decision accordingly. However, the decision was rendered in writing with insufficient investigation, which is incorrect. Therefore, the judgment should be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appeal is accepted, and in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking into account the provisions of Temporary Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the judgment is OVERTURNED. The advance appeal fee paid by the appellants shall be refunded upon request. The decision was made unanimously on November 5, 2014.