TC
judgment
8. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
E.2017/694
K.2017/1353
T.9.2.2017
CASE: At the end of the trial in the case described above and between the parties, the Court decided to accept the case and the file was examined and discussed by the Department upon the objection of the Decider by the defendant.
DECISION :
The plaintiff’s lawyer stated that his client had purchased the land subject to the lawsuit, ….he stated that the base station belonging to is located. There is no Decription in the land registry of the land related to the establishment of a base station on the plot or the lease to this company, there is no lease agreement, … The HEADQUARTERS, the base station has not been removed despite the passage of 30 days, the former owner of the land and Service and Management A .Sh. Dec paid a contract between the two, but no response was given, no payment was made, he said. he didn’t pay the rent and evicted the property,… 27 Stating that the appeal against the eviction decision was unfair. An eviction case was initiated with the Enforcement Directorate’s 2015/16700 Basic numbered file and the objection and decision were requested to be lifted. to evacuate.
The defendant stated that the lease agreement was signed for 5 years, the lease agreement for 6. in accordance with the article, he defended the rejection of the case by stating that no notice of termination was given within the legal period, the first rent was paid on 16/9/2013. there was no notification to the parties in 2009.
The court stated that according to the general provisions of the Code of Obligations, if the tenant is notified of the eviction notice 3 months before the end of the 5-year period contained in the lease agreement, the new owner may request the eviction of the tenant. By terminating the lease agreement with the previous owner, during the annual period in which 3 eviction notices were issued by the plaintiff 3 months before the end of the 5-year period, 3 eviction notices were notified by the plaintiff 3 months before the end of the 5-year period, 5 of the lease agreement. it was learned that 3 evacuation warnings were added to the article.
5 Of the lease agreement. it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that specifying the start date of the lease added to the article as the transfer date of paying will not bind a bona fide third party. Paid paying information of the purchasing owner and not informed about the lease agreement in the title deed, and the new owner who does not know when and how the payment was made, the purchase of the real estate may become legally unprotected in determining the notice period, and the decision was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer.
The case relates to the request for the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated due to the termination of the lease agreement and the eviction of the tenant.
in the enforcement proceedings initiated on 31/07/2015 in accordance with the written lease agreement dated 28/08/2009, the plaintiff requested the eviction of the land subject to the lawsuit and the eviction decision was notified on 05/08/2015. The debtor objected to the eviction decision stating that the first lease was transferred on 16/09/2009, the lease term expired on 16/09/2014 in accordance with Article 6 of the lease agreement, enforcement proceedings were not initiated within the legal period. the period is one month and the lease agreement is extended, there is no eviction commitment in the contract, and the warnings that the creditor claims to have sent do not arrive.
According to the lease agreement dated Dec. 28/08/2009 concluded between the former owner and the defendant (6 /a.) in the article; The start date of the lease agreement is the date on which the first year’s lease is sent / issued after the installation of the tower, wire fence, power transmission line and other facilities specified in Article 8 / a of the agreement is completed. 3. 3. in the article; If one of the parties does not inform the other party exclusively through a notary public that it has terminated the contract 6 months before the end of the term, the contract will be considered extended under the same conditions and for the same period, and the date of notification of termination notification to the other party will be taken as the basis for calculating this period.
The defendant claims that the first transfer was made on 16/09/2009. In this case, the fact that the start and end date of the lease is not clearly and clearly stated in the lease agreement, the termination notice period is included, the issue of whether the lease term has expired for the reasons stated in the defendant’s objection requires a trial. For this reason, while it should have been decided to dismiss the case, it was not correct to decide to accept it in writing, and it should have been overturned.
CONCLUSION :
For the reason explained above, with the acceptance of the defendant’s lawyer’s appeal objections, 366 of the EBL with reference to Provisional Article 3. article 428 of the Article and HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with the article, the REJECTION of the judgment will be decided. Pursuant to Article 366/3 of the CMK numbered 6100, the parties may request the correction of the decision within 10 days from the notification of the decision of the Appellate Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the advance fee will be refunded to the parties. The decision of the plaintiff was reached unanimously on 09.02.2017.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.