Legal Department 2013/14078 E., 2014/6778 K.
“Text of the Case”
COURT: Bursa 4th Criminal Court of First Instance
The decision rendered by the local court in the compensation case specified above by date and number was appealed by the defendant within the prescribed period. All documents in the file have been examined and the matter has been duly evaluated.
The case concerns a claim for compensation due to unfair dismissal. The court decided to partially accept the case, and the defendant’s representative objected to the decision.
In his petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the property in question was leased to F.K., who was not a party to the lawsuit, that it was transferred to his client on October 22, 1997, that the lease agreement was renewed annually, and that the most recent lease agreement between the parties was dated January 1, 2004; that the defendant terminated the contract without cause and requested eviction, and that administrative eviction proceedings were initiated in accordance with Law No. 3091; that the client was forced to vacate the property due to this coercion and suffered damages due to unjust eviction, requesting that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation of TL 10,000. In response, the defendant’s lawyer argued that the defendant vacated the property voluntarily after being informed of the council’s decision and that the case should be dismissed.
The court ruled that the defendant terminated the lease agreement unjustly, that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, that the monthly rent of 2,000 TL paid by the plaintiff should be covered in accordance with Article 264/2 of the Turkish Civil Code, and that the amount of compensation to be collected from the defendant, in line with the plaintiff’s request, was 10,000 TL.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement dated April 1, 2004. It is understood that the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement by a municipal council decision and that the plaintiff, who did not vacate the leased premises in accordance with this decision, requested that proceedings be initiated in accordance with Article 75 of Law No. 2886. Upon this notification, the plaintiff vacated and surrendered the premises on February 7, 2005. The court accepted that Law No. 2886 did not apply to municipal property as of the date the lawsuit was filed and that the termination was not based on just cause.
If significant reasons arise during the term of a lease agreement made for a specific period that make the lease relationship intolerable, the agreement may be terminated in accordance with Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Article 264 of the Turkish Civil Code). However, the lease relationship must become unbearable due to significant reasons, and the termination notice must be given within the periods specified in Articles 330 and 368 of the Turkish Civil Code (Articles 262 and 285 of the Turkish Civil Code). In this case, Article 331 of the Turkish Civil Code does not apply.
According to the principle of contractual obligation, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract they have entered into and, as a rule, it is not possible to terminate the contract before its term expires. Otherwise,
the party terminating the contract without a valid reason is liable for compensation. The lessor’s unilateral termination of the contract and failure to deliver the workplace covered by the contract to the lessee constitutes a breach of contract in this context. In this context, the defendant is liable for damages. Pursuant to Article 114/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, provisions regarding tort liability are also applied by analogy in cases of breach of contract.
Therefore, Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which regulates the reduction of compensation in cases of liability arising from the defendant’s breach of the lease agreement, applies. In this context, the plaintiff tenant is also obliged to make the necessary efforts to find a new workplace where they can continue their tenancy activities after termination.
Consequently, it is necessary to determine the period during which the plaintiff could re-rent another business premises where they could continue their activities as a tenant under the same terms and conditions, and the defendant landlord should be held liable for the loss of income during this period. The court did not make a determination or assessment regarding the period during which the plaintiff could re-rent a new business premises where they could continue their activities as a tenant under similar conditions after the termination.
The amount of compensation that the plaintiff can claim from the defendant landlord due to wrongful termination must be determined according to the principles and rules explained above. After this is done, the court must render a decision on the case; it is wrong to render a written judgment based on an incomplete examination.
Therefore, the decision must be overturned.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the appeals have been accepted and, in accordance with the provision of Provisional Article 3 added to the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the judgment has been REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Civil Procedure Code, and any advance appeal fee has been refunded to the plaintiff. This decision was taken unanimously on May 26, 2014.