Since the plaintiff did not have an eviction request during the enforcement proceedings, and in this case, in the case of compensation due to the cancellation of the objection to enforcement proceedings for the collection of rent and administrative expenses and the refusal of enforcement, although there was no eviction request during the enforcement proceedings, the pay order sent by the enforcement directorate with the ”Example 13″ eviction notice was not the subject of complaints by both parties in the enforcement court, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have an eviction request during the enforcement proceedings, and in this case, this issue, as accepted by the court, was intended to create eviction pressure on the defendant tenant, and it should be decided to accept the case in terms of the receivables subject to follow-up that cannot be proved to have been paid by the defendant.
Pay payable management expenses due to the fact that the claimant has made a commitment with the lease agreement but has not paid with the lease receivables, there is no irregularity in claiming.“Enforcement proceedings of at the end of the trial held due to ”Decertification”, the “objection” case between the parties was filed by the plaintiff’s attorney, Butler 1. 6 of the Court of Cassation with the decision of the Civil Court of Peace dated 08.11.2012 and numbered 2012/344 Esas-2012/1101 Decision on the rejection of the case. Upon the request of the Law Department to review the decision dated 12.03.2013 and numbered 2013/1411 Esas-2013/4217 Decision;
(…The dispute relates to compensation due to the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings related to the collection of rent and administrative expenses and the rejection of the enforcement proceedings. It was decided to dismiss the case by the court and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement dated 01.10.2010, which is the basis of the lawsuit and is based on the Decrees. 6 Of the special conditions section of the contract. in the article, it has been decided that electricity, water, natural gas, heating, apartment expenses and environmental cleaning tax will belong to the tenant. This condition applies and binds the parties. Plaintiff, Butler 2. October pay paid August-October 2011 rent over TL 250 per month in accordance with the contract, due to the defendant’s failure to pay despite the debt, with the enforcement proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in the enforcement file numbered 2011/1310, requested the collection of three administrative expenses and the notification fee, along with interest, for the months of August-October 2011.
Pay paying order Example 13 was notified to the defendant by the enforcement directorate, although there was no demand for release in the plaintiff’s follow-up request, the defendant claimed that he did not accept the debt with the appeal petition he filed within the legal period, objected to the manner of the transaction and the payment order, that the transaction was a private transaction, and the requests that could be requested by the pay order Example 13 were determined as limited. However, the plaintiff does not have a request for release in this case, which was filed both during the enforcement proceedings and on appeal.
In addition, the plaintiff’s attorney accepted that the rented real estate was evicted by declaring in the lawsuit petition that the key to the rented real estate was sent by the defendant on 30.11.2011. On the other hand, although there was no request for eviction during the enforcement proceedings, the enforcement directorate mistakenly sent a pay order with Sample 13 eviction notice, which was not the subject of complaints by either party in the enforcement court. Within the framework of all these explanations, it is seen that the plaintiff did not request release during the enforcement proceedings and in this case.
Pays paid by the plaintiff in addition to the rent receivables that the defendant has undertaken with the lease agreement but has not paid, there are also no irregularities in claiming the administrative expenses paid by the plaintiff. As accepted by the court, it cannot be said that this issue is intended to create eviction pressure on the defendant tenant. In this case, while the court should have decided to accept the case in terms of the receivables subject to follow-up that cannot be proved to have been paid by the defendant, the decision had to be overturned because it was not considered correct to establish a written judgment….) and the file was returned to its place, and the previous decision was resisted by the court at the end of the retrial.
LAW GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECISION
After it was understood that the decision of the General Assembly of Law was appealed during the term and the document in the file was read, the necessity was discussed:
Taking into account the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence contained in the file and the reasons explained in the decision to disrupt, it was stated that resisting the previous decision is contrary to procedure and the law, the decision to disrupt the Private Apartment, also adopted by the General Assembly of Law, should be followed, and in terms of follow-up receivables that cannot be proven to have been paid by the defendant, it should be decided to accept the case.
Therefore, the decision to resist must be reversed.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 22.04.2015 to accept the plaintiff attorney’s appeals, to overturn the decision of the Private Office to resist for the reasons shown in the decision to overturn, and to return the preliminary appeal fee to the depositor if requested.
hgk. 22.04.2015 T. E: 2013/1775, K: 1255
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.