TC
judgment
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW
E.2008/11-152
K.2008/162
T.27.2.2008
– CANCELLATION OF THE EVACUATİON COMMITMENT ( THE CASE FILE FOR THE EVICTION CASE SHOULD BE SENT, AND IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED THAT THE DECISION MADE IN THIS CASE CONSTITUTES THE FINAL JUDGMENT OR FINAL EVIDENCE, OR STRONG EVIDENCE OF APPRECIATION FOR THE CASE AT HAND.)
– EVICTION CASE (IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED THAT THE DECISION MADE IN THIS CASE BY TAKING THE RELEVANT CASE FILE IS THE FINAL JUDGMENT OR FINAL EVIDENCE, OR STRONG EVIDENCE OF APPRECIATION FOR THE CASE AT HAND – CANCELLATION OF THE EVICTION COMMITMENT)
– A DECISION TO RESIST IN THE NATURE OF A NEW DECISION (THE DECISION SUBJECT TO APPEAL IS NOT ACTUALLY A DECISION TO RESIST, BUT A NEW DECISION CREATED BY TAKING INSPIRATION FROM THE DECISION AND EVALUATING THE CANCELLATION IN LINE WITH IT) 6762/M 0,336, 337
SUMMARY :
Since the plaintiff’s lawyer, who did not object to the previous decision of the Local Court in the same direction, has no legal interest in objecting to the decision to resist, the rejection of the appeal petition is required. The decision to overturn, the defendant’s lawyer of the Turkish Aviation Authority stated that an eviction case was filed against the plaintiff tenant based on the evacuation commitment made by his client before the current case, and that the decision was finalized; it was pointed out that the case file related to the eviction case should be brought and it should be evaluated whether the decision made in this case constitutes a final judgment or conclusive evidence or strong discretion evidence from the point of view of the case.
In the justification of the Local Court decision on the subject of the appeal, it was stated that the decision made in the evacuation case will not constitute a final provision for the current case, since the parties, subject matter and grounds of both cases are different.In this case, the decision that is the subject of the appeal is not actually a decision of resistance; it is a new decision inspired by the cancellation and evaluated according to the cancellation. Therefore, the task of examining the appeal decision belongs to the Private Department, not to the General Assembly of Legal Departments.
LAWSUIT :
At the end of the lawsuit filed between the parties for the cancellation of the eviction commitment and the claim for compensation; the defendant’s lawyers, Istanbul 9 Dec. Upon the request of the examination of the decision of the Commercial Court of First Instance dated 8.4.2004 and numbered 2003/900-2004/357 on the acceptance of the case, 11. The Law Department, according to the decision of the Court of Cassation dated 24.5.2005 and numbered 2004/11105-2005/5480;
(… The plaintiff’s attorney, in the original and combined case petitions, the defendant belongs to the Turkish Aviation Authority M. He stated that the real estate used under the name of the Antique Hotel was rented to the client company with a lease agreement dated 16.5.2012. Since the joint company was needed for the repair of the building, which became deserted and unusable in 1985, L. Laleli Hotel Management Investment Tourism and Trade.A.Sh. the company was founded with his name. . At the general assembly meeting of the client company dated 07.06.2000, the person in question signed the discharge commitment dated 27.11.2000 based on this authority and transferred his shares in the company on 01.12.2000 and stated that he did not do so in the transfer agreement.
That the client’s company’s survival depends on the continuation of its rights in the hotel, that the general and board of directors decision on such an important issue is conditional, and that the eviction commitment made by the signature of the shareholder, who is the sole representative in this regard, is invalid, the power of representation granted to the defendant due to the signing of the lease agreement with four decisions on behalf of the partner is intended for ordinary daily transactions, the plaintiff company, the defendant is the principal tenant of the real estate of THK.after informing the company that the lease term has been extended from 2000 to 2020, at least the signatories of the lease agreement must also have their signatures on the eviction commitment.
Evacuation commitment dated 27.11.2000. A, who is the main tenant of the real estate.Sh.the company has been notified by the defendant THK that the lease term has been extended from 2000 to 2020 and that THK has filed an eviction lawsuit by participating in facilitating the actions of the malicious partner Cetin. S. based on the eviction commitment dated 27.11.2000, the client filed a claim.
And lawsuit for the cancellation of the eviction commitment dated 27.11.2000, claiming that the plaintiff company’s partners had completely changed on 27.11.2000 with the transfer of shares on 01.12.2000, four days before the former partner transferred his shares, no one who knew about the eviction commitment dated 27.11.2000 would take over the shares. and 336-337 of the TCC. within the scope of the articles, the accused is Cetin S.he waived his claim for compensation by requesting the collection of TL (20,000,000,000) TL (20,000,000,000) along with interest from .
VERDICT :
The main case and the combined case, the main case defendant is Cetin S.’s, on behalf of the Turkish Airlines Union, the defendant of the unified lawsuit, the unified defendant Cetin S.it is related to the request for cancellation of the release commitment given to . The company is the plaintiff in both lawsuits.Plaintiff G. Maritime Trade A.Sh.the lawyer of the defendant Cetin S, who has been a partner of the plaintiff company since its establishment, both in the original and combined case.he stated that the has given an evacuation commitment.
A lawsuit was filed against the other defendant who rented it, dated 27.11.2000, without permission and in violation of the rules of honesty by hiding it from the company. he made the eviction commitment dated 2000 and left the partnership shortly after by transferring his shares; cancellation of the legally invalid eviction commitment and defendant Çetin S.a lawsuit has been filed with the request of collecting 10.000.000.000 TL financial compensation from; during the hearing, he postponed his claim for compensation with the petition dated 29.3.2004 and repeated this statement at the hearing held on 8.4.2004.
The lawyers of both defendants requested the dismissal of the case; the defendant’s lawyer of the Turkish Aviation Authority stated that an eviction case had been filed by his client based on the letter of commitment subject to the case, which had resulted in acceptance, and the decision had been finalized.
Local Court stated that; (… The defendant Cetin S, who gave the undertaking subject of the case., with the circular dated 27.11.2000, the plaintiff company was authorized to represent and bind in the broadest sense and gave an undertaking based on this authority. As a result of the lawsuit filed based on the eviction commitment, Ankara 7. It is understood that the Civil Court of Peace has decided to evict the real estate and the decision has not yet been finalized. although the company, which entered into a share transfer agreement on 1.12.2000, appeared as a tenant in the plaintiff company lease agreement after submitting the letter of commitment, it is understood that it accepted the lease of LAS according to the scope of the file.
By the defendant Turkish Aviation Authority, the evacuation commitment was given by the defendant Çetin Saraç on behalf of the plaintiff company, and this evacuation commitment was actually used by the immovable property. it is not related to the actual and legal title of the tenancy.as it belongs to , the evacuation commitment does not bind the tenant. The Defendant is Cetin S., gave the eviction commitment and caused damage by causing an eviction decision to be taken against the plaintiff company.
The accused THK. and LASH. He is actually a tenant in the real estate, according to the commitment letter of Çetin S.’s Tough S. that he abused his authority with and obtained an eviction order against the plaintiff company…), the commitment of eviction dated 27.11, on the grounds that the case was accepted. rejection of the claim for compensation due to waiver by law No. 2000 dated 27.11.2000; reversal of the decision by the Special Chamber with the above-mentioned decision upon the objection of the defendant’s lawyers; The Local Court made a decision to resist and this decision was appealed by the lawyers of the parties.
1- Since the plaintiff’s lawyer, who does not object to the previous decision of the Local Court in the same direction, has no legal interest in appealing the decision of the Local Court, the appeal petition should be rejected.
2- In the decision to overturn, in the face of the defendant Turkish Aviation Authority’s lawyer stating that an evacuation case was filed by his client before the case against the plaintiff tenant based on the eviction commitment subject to the lawsuit; the hand that resulted in acceptance and the decision was finalized; the case file for the eviction case should be brought, and the decision made in this case should be evaluated whether it would constitute a final judgment or conclusive evidence or strong discretion evidence from the point of view of the lawsuit.
In the justification of the Local Court decision on the subject of the appeal, it was stated that the decision made in the evacuation case will not constitute a final provision for the current case, since the parties, subject matter and grounds of both cases are different. .
This case, the decision that is the subject of the appeal is not actually a decision of resistance; it is a new decision inspired by the cancellation and evaluated according to the cancellation.
Therefore, the task of examining the appeal decision belongs to the Private Department, not to the General Assembly of Legal Departments.
CONCLUSION :
1- The plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal petition was rejected for the reason explained in paragraph (1) above;
2- For the reason explained in paragraph (2) above, for the examination of the appeals filed by the defendant’s lawyers against the new decision, the file was filed on 27.02.2008 on 11. It was unanimously decided to send it to the Legal Department.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.