TC
Law Office
CASE NO: 2018/1628
DECISION NO: 2018/2674
DATE OF DECISION: 19.3.2018
RENT CLAIMS – RENT INCREASE RATE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE RENTAL AGREEMENT – ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR RENT INCREASE
6098/m.346
SUMMARY: Upon examination of the lease agreement between the parties, it is understood that the provision in Article 6 of the agreement, which states, “The tenant hereby accepts and undertakes to increase the rent by a percentage of its fair value at the end of the agreement,” has been made. Since the rate of increase is not specified in the provision in question, this increase condition is not valid as it is not specific and particular.
Upon examination of the enforcement file in the case file, it is seen that enforcement proceedings were initiated based on a monthly rent of TL 440. However, since the monthly rent specified in the lease agreement is “TL 400,” it cannot be claimed with monthly increases of “TL 440.” This is contrary to procedure, substance, and law, and the court should have overturned the decision without considering this issue.
CASE: As a result of the court hearing the claim case between the parties, the defendant’s representative appealed the decision to accept the claim within the specified time limit; after the appeal petition was accepted, all documents in the file were read and the necessary action was taken:
Decision
The plaintiff claims that the defendant leased the property located at the address specified in the lease agreement signed between the plaintiff and the defendant on December 30, 2008, that the defendant failed to pay the rent for the property located at Ankara 18 from July 30, 2009, to May 30, 2010, and that the Enforcement Directorate initiated legal proceedings in case file No. 2011/1648 to collect the unpaid rent. Th plaintiff objected to the enforcement proceedings and requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the unpaid rent of TL 4,400.00 plus statutory interest accruing monthly.
The defendant, B.K., argued that the lease agreement was clearly agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant, that Ramazan Mane was a party to the agreement, and that his signature was obtained even though he was not a tenant or guarantor. He requested that the case be decided primarily on the grounds of hostility and, if not, that the case be dismissed on the grounds of violation of moral rules.
Upon accepting the case, the court ruled that the defendant should pay 4,400.00 TL, plus legal interest from the date of the lawsuit, and the defendant’s attorney appealed the ruling.
1-) According to the items in the file, considering that there is no inaccuracy in the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal grounds, and especially the assessment of the evidence, the defendant’s attorney’s other appeals must be rejected.
2-)In the specific case; upon examination of the lease agreement dated July 30, 2008, concluded between the parties, it is understood that the provision in Article 6 of the agreement states: “The tenant hereby accepts and undertakes to increase the rent at the end of the agreement by a percentage of the market value.” Since the increase rate is not specified in the aforementioned provision, this increase condition is not valid as it is not specific and particular in nature.
Upon examination of the Ankara 18th Enforcement Directorate’s enforcement file No. 2011/1648 included in the case file, it is seen that enforcement proceedings were initiated based on a monthly rent of TL 440. However, since the lease agreement does not allow for a monthly increase of “TL 400,” the court’s decision without making such an adjustment is contrary to procedure, substance, and law and must be overturned.
CONCLUSION:
The defendant’s attorney’s other appeals, made for the reasons explained above, are rejected for the reasons stated in the first paragraph, and a decision is made for the reasons stated in the second paragraph. Pursuant to Article 428, paragraph 428, in accordance with Article 440 of HUMK No. 1086, with temporary reference to Article 3 of HMK No. 6100, it was decided to REVERSE the defendant’s interest and, if requested, to refund the appeal fee previously paid by the plaintiff. Pursuant to the article, it was unanimously decided on March 19, 2018, to close the avenue for correction of the decision.