TC
JUDGMENT
6TH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
E.2008/11
K.2008/2784
T.11.3.2008
LEASE AGREEMENT (Since the signed signature will bind the signatory tenant, no objection can be made to the later filling of the dates in the document containing the Eviction Undertaking)
EVACUATION COMMITMENT (given by the Tenant while living in the Lease Agreement – Since the signature in the Lease Agreement will bind the Tenant, the objection that the dates in the document containing the evacuation commitment are filled in later is not taken into account)
OBLIGATION TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE EVACUATION COMMITMENT (Since the signature in the Lease Agreement will bind the Signatory Tenant, the objection that the dates in the document containing the Evacuation Commitment are filled in later cannot be ignored)
FILLING IN LATER DATES (Since the signature in the Lease Agreement will bind the Signatory Tenant, the objection that the dates in the document containing the Eviction Undertaking are filled in later cannot be ignored)
6570/m.7/a
SUMMARY :
Although the tenant defends that (the letter of commitment was received during the signing of the lease agreement and the date of signing the agreement was filled in later); In the letter of commitment, whose signature was not rejected, he admitted that he lived in the apartment belonging to the plaintiff “still under tenancy and occupation” and that he gave the eviction commitment while living in the rented property. . On the other hand, since the signature will bind the signatory tenant, the objection that the dates in this document containing the eviction commitment were filled in later cannot be accepted. Even if it is accepted that the date of issue in the letter of commitment is left blank and given to the plaintiff, the defendant tenant must bear the consequences of this behavior. The eviction of the rented property should be decided.
CASE : The above dated and numbered decision of the local court to cancel the objection-eviction case was appealed by the plaintiff in due time, and all documents in the file were read, discussed and evaluated:
DECISION :
The dispute is about the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceeding for the evacuation of the lease due to the eviction commitment and the evacuation of the lease. The court decided to dismiss the case and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition that the defendant was the tenant of the leased place with the lease agreement dated 1.9.2003, and that he undertook to evacuate the leased place on 30.8.2005 with the evacuation commitment given on 15.10.2003. In 2005, the eviction commitment was invalid because it was given when the lease agreement was signed, but the defendant objected to the enforcement proceeding filed against him for not evacuating in due time, claiming that the dates of the agreement and the commitment were the same.
The letter of commitment was given after the lease agreement and while living in the rented place, the defendant could not submit a document confirming the objection, and requested the cancellation of the objection and the eviction of the defendant from the rented place. The defendant’s lawyer stated that the lease agreement was prepared by the real estate agent, that in order to conclude a lease agreement, the defendant must sign an eviction commitment letter on the condition of the lessor and the real estate agent, and that the agreement and the commitment letter must be signed.
He stated that the letter of commitment was written with the same typewriter, the date of issue in the letter of commitment was added later, the letter of commitment was invalid as it was given together with the lease agreement and against the free will of the defendant, in addition, the plaintiff consented to the continuation of the lease agreement by taking the new term rent money without reservation and defended the dismissal of the lawsuit.
According to Article 7/a of the Law No. 6570 on Real Estate Leases and established jurisprudence, the letter of commitment must be given with free will in order to issue an eviction decision in cases filed due to the eviction commitment letter.After the contract is signed, while living in the leased property.
It is not possible to issue an eviction decision based on an undertaking that does not meet these characteristics.
As for our case; there is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement dated 1.9.2003, which is relied upon in the enforcement proceedings and the lawsuit and taken as the basis of the judgment. The plaintiff filed an enforcement action against the defendant on 22.9.2005 for the eviction of the leased immovable property with the file dated 22.9.2005 and numbered 2005/5397 of Bakırköy 2nd Execution Directorate based on the eviction undertaking dated 15.10.2003 and 30.8.2005. The defendant, who objected to the enforcement proceedings within the legal period, argued that the eviction undertaking was invalid since it was taken at the beginning of the contract and reiterated this objection during the hearing.
Although the defendant defended that the eviction undertaking was taken while the lease agreement was being prepared and that the date of issuance was filled in later, he admitted that he was living in the apartment belonging to the plaintiff in the undertaking whose signature was not denied”. said that he was still “tenant and occupying” and that he gave an eviction undertaking while living in the rented property.On the other hand, since the signature is binding on the signatory tenant, the objection that the dates in this document containing the eviction commitment were filled in later cannot be accepted.
Even if it is accepted that the date of issue of the letter of commitment was left blank and given to the plaintiff, the defendant tenant must bear the consequences of this behavior. The fact that the date of issue was filled in later has no effect on the result. Since the proceeding was filed in due time and the lawsuit was filed, the eviction commitment given for the evacuation of the leased property should be accepted and the evacuation should be decided, while the written judgment should be reversed as it is not correct. It is valid to live in the leased property with free will.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 11.03.2008 to accept the appeal objections and to VACATE the judgment pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to refund the prepaid appeal fee to the appellant if requested. .
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.