6th Chamber of Justice 2013/14078 E., 2014/6778 K.
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Bursa 4th Criminal Court of First Instance
DATE: 06/27/2013
NUMBER: 2010/37-2013/621
The defendant filed a timely appeal against the local court decision regarding the compensation case with the above date and number, and all documents in the file were read, discussed, and evaluated.
T he case concerns a claim for compensation due to unfair dismissal. The court decided to partially accept the case, and the defendant’s lawyer appealed the decision.
In the petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the property in question was leased to F.. Ka, was transferred to his client on 22/10/1997, that the lease agreement was renewed annually, that the most recent lease agreement between the parties was dated 01.01.2004, and that the defendant terminated the agreement without giving any reason. he attorney requested that the property be vacated and stated that he had initiated eviction proceedings through administrative channels in accordance with Law No. 3091, that his client was forced to vacate the property due to this obligation, and that he had suffered damages due to the unjust eviction, demanding 10,000 TL in compensation from the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney argued in the response that the defendant voluntarily vacated the property after being notified of the municipal council’s decision and requested that the case be dismissed. The court ruled that the lease agreement was unjustly terminated by the defendant, that the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation, and that the material damage suffered fell within the scope of Article 264/2 of the Turkish Civil Code. In line with the plaintiff’s request, it was stated that the monthly rent of TL 2,000 paid in accordance with the law amounted to TL 12,000 for 6 months, and it was decided to collect TL 10,000 in compensation from the defendant.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement dated April 1, 2004. It is understood that the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement by a decision of the municipal council and, upon the plaintiff’s failure to vacate the leased premises in accordance with this decision, requested that proceedings be initiated pursuant to Article 75 of Law No. 2886, and that upon this notification, the plaintiff vacated and surrendered the property on February 7, 2005. The court accepted that, as of the date of the transaction, Law No. 2886 could not be applied to properties belonging to the municipality and that the termination was not based on a valid reason.
During the term of a lease agreement concluded for a specific period, the lease relationship must become intolerable for important reasons in order for the agreement to be terminated pursuant to Article 331 of the TCO (Civil Code Article 264). The termination notice must be given within the periods specified in Articles 330 and 368 (Civil Code Articles 262 and 285), and in this case, Article 331 of the TCO does not apply.
In accordance with the principle of contractual obligation, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, and as a rule, termination before the expiration of the contract is not possible.
In this case, the party terminating the contract without just cause shall be liable for damages. The lessor’s unilateral termination of the contract and failure to deliver the workplace subject to the contract to the lessee constitutes a breach of contract in this context. In this context, the defendant is liable for damages.
Pursuant to Article 114/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the provisions regarding tort liability shall also apply by analogy in cases of breach of contract. Therefore, Article 52 of the Turkish Commercial Code, which regulates the reduction of compensation arising from the defendant’s breach of the lease agreement, shall apply. In this context, the plaintiff tenant must make the necessary efforts to find a new workplace where they can continue their activities as a tenant after termination. As a result, the period during which the plaintiff could re-rent another workplace where they could operate as a tenant under the same terms and conditions should be determined, and the defendant landlord should be held liable for the loss of income during this period.
The court did not determine or evaluate how long the plaintiff could re-lease a new business premises where they could continue to operate as a tenant under similar conditions after the termination. The amount of compensation that the plaintiff can claim from the defendant landlord due to the unjust termination should be determined according to the principles and rules explained above. After this has been done, it would not be right to issue a written decision based on an incomplete examination; the court should issue a decision on the claim.
Therefore, the decision should be overturned.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 05/26/2014 to accept the objections, to take into account the provisions of the provisional Article 3 added to the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, to overturn the ruling in accordance with Article 428, and to refund the objection fee previously paid to the plaintiff.