Turkish Supreme Court, 3rd Civil Chamber E: 2017/3309, K: 2017/16796, KT: 30.11.2017
As a result of the court hearing the compensation case between the parties, upon the objection filed within the time limit against the decision of the plaintiff’s representative to dismiss the case due to his duties, and after the appeal petition was accepted, the documents in the file were examined and deemed necessary:
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the real estate in question and alleged that the defendants had unlawfully occupied the real estate. T he plaintiff requested that the defendants’ unlawful interference with the real estate be prevented, that they be evicted from the real estate, and that they pay 25,000 TL in compensation for the unlawful occupation.
The defendant requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that they had rented the real estate from the previous owner and were not unlawful occupiers.
Due to the lease agreement submitted by the defendant, the court decided not to proceed on the grounds that the competent court was the court of conciliation, and this decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s representative.
Article 4 of HMK No. 6100, which entered into force on October 1, 2011, regulates the duties of the conciliation courts. According to Article 1/a, all disputes arising from claims related to the lease relationship, including lawsuits filed against these disputes, are assigned to the conciliation court; this also includes provisions regarding the execution and non-execution eviction of leased real estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Law. … Unlike HMUK No. 1086, this regulation specifies the conciliation court as the place of resolution for disputes arising from the entire lease relationship, such as eviction, claims, compensation, and determination of the tenant’s ownership, regardless of the amount involved.
.
According to Article 26/1 of HMK No. 6100, “The judge is bound by the consequences of the parties’ claims; he cannot decide on more or less than that. Depending on the circumstances, he may also decide on less than the consequences of the claim.”
The case was filed on the assumption that the defendants already occupied the real estate in dispute; pursuant to Article 2/1 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, the claim was made based on the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, and the dispute was resolved. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Court of First Instance has a duty under the relevant article.
In this case, the court should examine the merits of the case and, if it decides that there is a legally valid lease relationship between the parties, dismiss the case; otherwise, it should decide in favor of intervention and removal of the offense; it is not correct to issue a written judgment.
CONCLUSION:
In accordance with the principles explained above, the written decision, which does not cause any harm to the facility, has accepted the objections as valid for these reasons, and the decision is in accordance with Law No. 1086.