Eviction of Tenant – Supreme Court Decision
Legal Department 2016/4558 E., 2016/3822 K.
“Case Text”
COURT: Conciliation Court
CASE TYPE: Eviction of tenant
The decision issued by the local court regarding the eviction case with the above date and number was appealed by the plaintiff and defendant within the specified period. All documents in the file were reviewed and the necessary evaluations were made.
The case concerns the new property owner’s request for the eviction of the tenant and termination of the lease agreement due to significant repairs and renovations. The court ruled that the case was moot because the property had been vacated after the lawsuit was filed and that no decision was necessary. It also ruled that the defendant must pay the costs of filing the lawsuit and that a fixed attorney’s fee must be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys objected to the decision regarding court costs.
Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, titled “Obligations of the Lessor, Reconstruction and Improvement,” stipulates as follows: “If the lessor is compelled to use the leased property as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, children, ascendants, or other persons whom he is legally obligated to support, and if the leased property requires significant repairs, extensions, or alterations for the purpose of reconstruction or improvement, and if the use of the leased property becomes impossible during such work, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit within one month from the date determined according to the notice period and termination period specified at the end of the lease term and upon the expiration of the lease term in fixed-term and indefinite-term lease agreements.”
Pursuant to Article 331/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if, after the lawsuit has been filed, an event occurs that eliminates the need or reason for a positive or negative decision on the subject matter of the lawsuit, the lawsuit may be deemed to have been rendered moot. In this case, the court must rule that there is no need to evaluate the merits of the case, as this is a declaratory action, and must determine the costs of the case based on the merits of the case at the time the lawsuit was filed.
Article 6 of the Minimum Attorney Fee Schedule states, “If the case is dismissed, waived, accepted, settled, or resolved for any other reason before the preliminary examination record is signed, half of the fees specified in the schedule shall be paid; if the dispute is resolved after the preliminary examination record is signed, the full amount shall be paid. This article does not apply to contract-based attorney fees calculated by the courts.”
In our case, the plaintiff’s attorney stated in the complaint that the defendant was the tenant of the property under a lease agreement dated August 18, 2010, that the plaintiff purchased the property on December 3, 2013, that the plaintiff informed the defendant of the purchase, and that the plaintiff notified the defendants that the property needed to be vacated due to significant repairs and renovations.
Therefore, the tenant must vacate the property. The defendant’s attorney argued that the notice was sent by the previous owner and that the plaintiff was informed that the property would be vacated on August 18, 2014, and requested that the case be dismissed.
In the case dismissed by the court, the court must decide on the litigation costs and attorney’s fees, taking into account the merits of the plaintiff and the defendant. The expert report dated July 7, 2014, obtained as a result of the court’s examination, stated that the property in question was registered as a cultural asset that must be preserved and, in this context, was considered a historical monument.
Therefore, it was stated that the decision on whether to accept the case could only be made after obtaining a new restoration project approved by the municipality, obtaining a new restoration permit accordingly, and knowing the decision of the Istanbul No. 7 Regional Council for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets, which approved this project. In this case, it is not correct to decide in writing on the litigation costs and attorney’s fees without the necessary examination on the grounds that the defendant caused the lawsuit to be filed without remedying the deficiencies indicated by the experts.
Therefore, the decision should be canceled.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the appeals have been accepted and, in accordance with the provisions of Provisional Article 3 added to the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the decision has been REVERSED in accordance with Article 428 of the Civil Procedure Law, and any advance appeal fee has been refunded to the plaintiff. This decision was taken unanimously on May 10, 2016.