Cancellation of Objection to Execution Proceedings Based on Evacuation Commitment
TC
JUDGMENT
6TH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
E.2015/13141
K.2016/6753
T.16.11.2016
CASE :
The above dated and numbered decision of the local court regarding the eviction case was appealed by the plaintiff within the time limit, and all documents in the file were read, discussed and evaluated.
DECISION :
The lawsuit is related to the request for cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceeding initiated based on the evuction commitment. The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the commitment was not valid, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
There is no dispute about the 1-year contract signed between the parties on 01.07.2009 and the start date of the lease agreement was determined as 01.08.2009. After the signing of the contract, it was agreed to vacate the leased immovable property on 01.08.2011 with the evacuation commitment letter with the regulation numbered 18005 Yev. The 26th Notary Decree was issued on 21.07.2009, but later on, the date of evacuation of the immovable was changed to 01.08.2015 with the ordinary handwritten letter under the same document.
The plaintiff lessor requested the evacuation of the leased immovable by sending an evacuation order to the defendant with the enforcement proceeding initiated on 04.08.2015 based on the said commitment. After the eviction order was notified to the defendant on 08/08/2015, the defendant, who objected to the transaction within the time limit, stated that the signature under the letter of commitment underlying the enforcement proceeding did not belong to him and did not accept the signature under the letter of commitment.
However, since the defendant tenant objected to the signature in the commitment letter in question and the lawsuit petition requests the cancellation of the defendant’s objection to the enforcement proceeding, the court should focus on the defendant’s objection to the signature in the ordinary written commitment letter. It is not correct to have an expert examination to determine whether the signature belongs to the defendant based on the enforcement proceeding and to decide according to the result to be obtained, but to decide to dismiss the case on written grounds.
For this reason, the decision should be reversed.
CONCLUSION :
For the reasons explained above, on 16/11/2016, it was unanimously decided to accept the objections and to REVERSE the judgment pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisional article 3 added to the Code. Pursuant to the Law No. 6217 and the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the prepaid appeal fee shall be returned to the appellant upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.