According to the Code of Obligations, the landlord can receive a deposit of up to 3 rental fees.
The article titled “assurance of the tenant” of the Code of Obligations is as follows.
“ARTICLE 342- If the obligation to provide security to the tenant has been imposed by contract on residential and roofed workplace rents, this security cannot exceed the three-month rental price.
If it is agreed to provide money or negotiable instruments as security, the tenant deposits the money in a term savings account, and stores the negotiable instrument in a bank, so as not to withdraw it without the approval of the lessor. The Bank may return the guarantees only with the consent of the two parties or upon the finalization of the enforcement proceedings or on the basis of a finalized court decision.
If the lessor has not notified the bank in writing that he has filed a lawsuit against the lessee regarding the lease agreement within three months after the expiration of the lease agreement, or that he is pursuing enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings, the bank is obliged to return the security at the request of the lessee.”
Legal Department 2017/1898 E. , 2017/3140 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : MAGISTRATE’S COURT
Between the parties in the merged file the original and the withdrawal of the appeal made by the Proceedings of the court case as a result of the case coupled main and provision for the admission of Appeals has considered the parties within the given period of first instance; decided upon the adoption of the petition of Appeal has been duly noted and read the papers in the file:
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Deputy principal tenant of the plaintiff in the petition; the premises pursuant to Article 10 of the lease agreement tenants to move 3.800,00 TL assurance that the defendant had handed the cost to the lessor, mutually was being evacuated by the immovable before the end of the lease period, the defendant in the month of September will be refunded the cost of rent real estate on give assurance that says that, but that the negotiations have failed, the cost of the rent that will receive assurance can be offset, …. 12. The pay order sent by the Enforcement Directorate with the file numbered 2014/25562 was notified to the defendant, and the defendant appealed the debt and stopped the proceedings, and the defendant requested and sued to decide on the cancellation of the unfair appeal made by the defendant.
The respondent lessor’s deputy stated in the response petition that the plaintiff had evicted the immovable property in violation of the contract on 15.08.2014 before the expiration of the contract and without complying with the written notification requirement, 6 of the contract. in his article, he stated that in case of non-compliance with the written notification requirement, it was decided to pay the quarterly rent as compensation, so it should be decided whether the lawsuit filed is unfair or rejected, and in the unified lawsuit petition; defendant-because of the tenant’s early termination of the immovable property is re-rented and the rent until the date 10.11.2014 where it was agreed that the contract would be responsible for the cost of the penalty, therefore, against the defendant 3.800 tl TL balance by offsetting the cost of the immovable property with assurance 1900 re-rented until the rent receivables where the date 10/11/2014 was followed for the collection launched with the interest of the defendant-tenant, noting that the debt has stopped the pursuit of an appeal against unfair is asked to decide on the withdrawal of the appeal made by the defendant.
The court decided to accept the original and merged case, and the decision was appealed separately by the defendants of the original and merged case.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement concluded on Dec0/01/2014 and for a period of one year from 01.02.2014, which is based on the case. The monthly rental price is determined as TL 1,900 in the lease agreement and the special conditions of the contract are 5. In Article 6, the contract may be terminated by the lessee by informing the lessee in writing no later than one month before the expiration of the period. In case of failure to do so within the period of written notification in Article 10 of the contract, the rental price for three months from the date of actual release will be paid separately as compensation in case of failure to do so or not to do so at all. Article 3.800-tl guarantee price will be delivered by the tenant to the landlord in order to prevent and compensate for the occurrence of damages and deficiencies that will make the lessee’s condition worse than the condition in which it was delivered.
In accordance with the principle of commitment to the contract (commitment), the parties must comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. Unless there is a justified reason and it is terminated duly, the lessee is bound by the term of the contract and is obliged to compensate the damage caused by the lessee before the term of the contract and in case of unfair termination of the contract.
It has been agreed in the contract that the contract can be terminated by the lessee by informing the lessor in writing no later than one month before the expiration of the period, and it is understood that the lessee has evicted the real estate on 15.08.2014 by terminating the contract without complying with this notice requirement and before the expiration of the contract. TBK.of 325. in its article; “If the lessee returns the leasehold without complying with the term of the contract or the termination period, the debts arising from the lease agreement shall continue for a reasonable period during which the lessee may be leased on similar terms. If there is a new tenant who can be expected to accept the tenant before the expiration of this period, has the ability to pay and is ready to take over the lease relationship, the tenant’s debts arising from the lease agreement will be terminated”regulation has been included. In the expert report received by the court, the reasonable period during which the real estate can be re-rented is determined as two months, and it must be accepted that the tenant will be responsible for the compensation for the reasonable period of two months determined by the court. In this context, it is understood that the two-month lease receivable is charged by the lessor from the deposit amount; considering that the claimant-lessee’s deposit refund request is not justified in the actual case, the plaintiff-lessee’s receivable is charged from the deposit amount in the merged case, it is not correct to decide in writing when both cases should be decided to dismiss the case.
The provision must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: The provision was made for the reasons described above.nun 428. according to article 3 of the HMK No. 6100, HUMK No. 1086 with temporary reference to article 3 of the HMK, the return of the advance payment of the appeal fee to the appellant upon request.nun 440. according to the article, the decision was made unanimously on 15.03.2017, with the correction path closed.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.