Eviction Commitment (Binds the Tenant’s Heirs)
TC
judgment
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW
E.2004/6-428
K.2004/456
T.29.9.2004
– EVICTION (Five-Year Three-Month Lease Agreement – Validity of the Eviction Commitment Signed One Year After the Signing of the Lease Agreement and the Tenant’s Settlement in the Rented Housing / Will Bind the Tenant’s Heirs)
– EVICTION COMMITMENT (ALSO BINDING ON THE TENANT’S LEGACIES – SIGNED ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIVE-YEAR, THREE-MONTH LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE TENANT MOVED INTO THE TENANT’S APARTMENT/VALID)
– TRANSFER OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT (TO THE TENANT’S LEGACIES – THE COMMITMENT MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACT MUST BE VALID / IT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE ON THE EVICTION OF THE TENANT DUE TO THE VALID COMMITMENT) 2004/M. 272, 273, 275 6570/M . 7
SUMMARY: The lease agreement, which is the basis for the cancellation of the appeal and the eviction case, is dated 01.10.1995 and has a duration of five years and three months. the commitment made after the establishment of the written lease agreement on 01.10.1996 and the tenant’s settlement in the rented property is valid and binds the tenant’s heirs. Even if the transfer of the contract is accepted, since the commitment given in relation to the contract is valid, it is necessary to decide on the eviction of the lease agreement due to the valid commitment.
CASE:
At the end of the trial opened between the parties due to the case of “cancellation of the appeal, eviction”; Dec. 08/08/2003 and 2001/179 E, given by the plaintiff’s lawyer regarding the rejection of the case by the Bandirma Civil Court of Peace.2003/560 K. upon the request of the examination of the numbered decision 6. Decision of the Court of Cassation dated 03.11.2003 and numbered 2003/7890-7961 by the decision of the Civil Chamber; ( … The lease agreement subject to the case is dated 01.10.1995 and lasts for five years and three months. The lessor is the plaintiff, and the tenant is the heir of the defendants.
And it was signed by him. Written commitment is dated 01.10.1996, which is the subject of enforcement proceedings, and bears the signature of the lessee. The signature was rejected, as a result of the examination, the signature is the heir of the defendants. It was understood that it belonged to .
Commitment made on 01.10.1996 binds the heirs of the lessee after the establishment of the written lease agreement and the tenant’s settlement in the leased property. Even if the transfer of the contract is accepted, since the commitment given in relation to the contract is valid, the decision to evict the rent due to the valid commitment is contrary to procedure and law, but the provision must be overturned because a written decision of rejection has been made…) and the file was returned to its place, and at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision.
By examining the decision of the General Assembly of Law, it was understood that the decision to resist was objected to within the time limit and after reading the documents in the file, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION:
According to the reasons explained in the decision to overturn the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, resisting the previous decision is contrary to procedure and law, while resisting the decision to overturn is contrary to procedure and law. The special chamber rule, which has also been adopted by the General Assembly of Legal Departments, must be followed. Therefore, the decision to resist must be reversed.
CONCLUSION :
429 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the decision of the Court of Cassation on the acceptance of the appeals of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the reasons stated in the decision. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided to terminate it on 29.09.2004. he decided that the pre-appeal fee should be refunded if requested to the private room.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.