Tenant eviction case and reasons for eviction

The Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 contains general provisions regarding the termination of lease agreements; It also contains special regulations regarding the termination of the lease agreement in residential and roofed workplace leases. These special provisions protect the tenant, who is considered the weak party of the contract.

Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations states that residential and roofed workplace lease agreements can be made "by notification"; Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates termination "through litigation". Since we explained in detail the issue of termination of the lease "by notification" in our previous article, in this article we only cover TBK 350. Vd. We will discuss the issue of termination of the lease agreement "through litigation", which is regulated in the.

In residential and roofed workplace leases, the provisions of termination of the lease agreement through litigation become concrete in practice with the "eviction lawsuit" filed by the lessor against the tenant. Therefore, the concept of case mentioned in the article should be understood as "eviction case".

WHAT IS A DISCHARGE CASE?

The eviction lawsuit is filed by the lessor or the person who subsequently acquired the leased property, for the purpose of returning the leased property, pursuant to TBK 350 et seq. It is a type of lawsuit filed against the tenant based on limited reasons regulated in the Law.

LIMITATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Article 354 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates the limitation of causes of action and states that "Provisions regarding the termination of the lease agreement through litigation cannot be changed to the detriment of the tenant." Due to its provision, it has been stated that new reasons for evacuation that are not regulated in the contract and law cannot be decided.

Concerning the implementation of the provision of the said article;

According to Article 53 of Law No. 6353, which amends the temporary article 2 of Law No. 6217; Articles 323, 325, 331, 340, 343, 344, 346 and 354 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 cannot be applied for 8 years as of 01.07.2012 in workplace leases where the tenant is a person listed as a merchant in the Turkish Commercial Code and private law and public law legal entities, and in this case, freedom of contract regarding the issues specified in these articles in the lease agreements. It is also envisaged that the provisions of the lease agreement will be applied accordingly.

Due to this change, the implementation of the provisions of the said article is deemed to be postponed until 01.07.2020 for those who meet the criteria specified in the law.

The fact that the reasons for eviction lawsuits are limited in number by law does not prevent the lessor from exercising his extraordinary right of termination (Art. 331) in case there are justified reasons that make the continuation of the lease agreement unacceptable for the parties.

EXTENSION OF CASE PERIOD

It should be noted that; Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Commerce provides a provision that allows the lessor to extend the lawsuit filing period by 1 lease year. Relevant article;

"If the lessor has notified the tenant in writing that he will file a lawsuit within the stipulated time for filing the lawsuit at the latest, the period for filing a lawsuit is deemed to have been extended for one lease year." It is shaped like.

The lessor may make this notification before the end of the lease agreement, at the latest within the filing period as stated in the law. The notification must be made in writing and can be made through a notary.

In practice, since the court will investigate whether the lawsuit has been filed within the prescribed period, the lessor must file a lawsuit within the stipulated time or ensure that the period is extended by written notification within the filing period at the latest. The case that is not filed within the deadline will be rejected without being examined by the court.

We can concretize the issue in the light of the relevant Supreme Court decisions. Namely;

"The lease agreement, which has no dispute between the parties, has a starting date of 06.07.2009 and a period of 1 year. Since the tenant did not notify at least fifteen days before the end of the 1-year period of the lease agreement, the lease agreement was extended by one year with the same conditions in accordance with Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and continued until 06.07.2014. In accordance with Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the lessor Since the defendant had notified the defendant that he would file a lawsuit with a notice dated 11.06.2014 before this date, a lawsuit could be filed until 06.07.2015, which is the end of the extended lease year following the notification. In this case, the lawsuit filed on 21.10.2014 was in due time, and although the case should have been examined on its merits, it was not deemed appropriate for the court to reject the case on the grounds that it was not filed in due time. It required breaking." (Y. 3HD. Decision dated 23.3.2017)

"As for our case; the written lease contract that is the basis for the lawsuit has a five-year term with a starting date of 01.10.2009. The contract expired on 31.09.2014, and after the plaintiff served a time-breaking notice stating that the contract would not be renewed to the defendant tenant on 02.07.2014, a lawsuit could be filed until the end of the extended lease year following the notice, on 21.11.2014. "The lawsuit filed is in due time. While the merits of the case should be examined by the court, it is against the procedure and the law to decide to reject the case due to the written justification." (Y. 6HD. Decision dated 8.10.2015)

REASONS FOR EVICTION OF THE TENANT

The reasons that may form the basis of a lawsuit filed for the purpose of evicting the tenant are regulated under two headings in the TCO: "reasons arising from the lessor" and "reasons arising from the tenant".

A-REASONS FOR EVICTION CASE ARISING FROM THE LESSER

1. EVICTION CASE DUE TO THE NEED OF THE LESSER OR HIS RELATIVES

TBK 350 states that "The lessor shall conclude the lease;

1. If there is an obligation to use the rented property for oneself, one's spouse, one's descendants, one's descendants or other persons who are obliged to take care of it by law, due to housing or workplace needs, …

In fixed-term contracts, at the end of the term, in indefinite-term contracts, it can be terminated by filing a lawsuit within one month, starting from the date to be determined by complying with the termination period and the periods stipulated for notice of termination in accordance with the general provisions regarding rent. It is arranged as follows.

CONDITIONS OF EVICTION CASE DUE TO HOUSING NEED

Termination of the lease agreement and eviction of the tenant may be requested through a lawsuit, based on "housing need" arising from the lessor and regulated in the TCC.

•First of all, it is necessary to answer the question: Who are the people who can become plaintiffs by filing an eviction lawsuit due to housing needs? As can be understood from the provision of the article, the right to file a lawsuit belongs to the lessor as a rule. It is accepted in the established Supreme Court jurisprudence that the owner, who is not the lessor, has the right to file a lawsuit.

In cases where there is more than one lessor, the issue of who and how to file an eviction lawsuit is explained in the relevant Supreme Court decision as follows; "If the leased property is subject to joint ownership, the majority of the shares and stakeholders must be ensured. If it constitutes the subject of joint ownership, all partners must participate in the lawsuit. These conditions can be met by filing a lawsuit together, or by obtaining the approval of the other stakeholders in the lawsuit filed by a stakeholder. In case of joint ownership, if the partners cannot participate in the lawsuit, the lawsuit is carried out in the presence of the representative by ensuring that a representative is appointed to the estate of the testator."

•As stated in the relevant law article "To whom the housing need may belong", which is claimed as a reason for the eviction case, are the lessor himself, his spouse, his descendants, his descendants or other persons whom he is obliged to take care of by law. Other persons who are obliged to take care of him by law are TMK 364 "Paying alimony to his descendants and siblings who will fall into poverty if everyone does not help." It is determined in accordance with the article.

•Proving that the housing need is real, mandatory, permanent and sincere; is one of the most important conditions for the tenant to be evicted through litigation. The judge evaluates whether the housing need put forward is valid or not. Since the need for housing that is temporary or not permanent during the trial will not meet the requirement, it cannot be used as a reason for eviction. On the contrary, the return of the leased property cannot be concluded in a lawsuit filed based on the lessor's arbitrary, unrealistic demands and needs that have not yet arisen.

In light of the Supreme Court decisions, it is possible to list a few reasons that are deemed sufficient and sincere by the courts for the decision to release. For example, justified reasons such as the lessor's need for housing because he lives in a rented house, the rented house being more economically advantageous for the lessor, the lessor's health problems being more beneficial for him to live in the rented house, or the desire of an adult child to live in a house independent of his/her family, may be subject to an eviction lawsuit.

•Time to file a lawsuit based on housing need According to TBK 350/3, "a lawsuit can be filed at the end of the period in fixed-term contracts, and within one month starting from the date to be determined by complying with the termination period and the periods foreseen for notice of termination in accordance with the general provisions regarding rent in indefinite-term contracts."

It is very important to know the starting date and duration of the lease agreement in order to determine whether the lawsuit has been filed in due time. If there is a dispute between the parties regarding these dates, a definitive solution is reached by collecting the evidence presented. If it is determined that the case was not filed in due time, it is decided to reject it without going into the merits.

RE-RENTAL PROHIBITION

This regulation; It protects the former tenant against the lessor who wants to rent again after the evacuation of the leased property due to reasons arising from the lessor. Namely;

TBK art. 355: "When the lessor ensures the evacuation of the leased property for necessity purposes, without just cause, he cannot rent the leased property to anyone other than the former tenant unless three years have passed.

Immovable properties that have been evacuated for reconstruction and development purposes cannot be rented to anyone else in their former state unless three years have passed without just cause. The former tenant has the right of priority to rent the reconstructed and reconstructed real estate in its new condition and with the new rental price. This right must be exercised within one month following the written notification made by the lessor; Unless this priority right is terminated, the real estate cannot be rented to anyone else before three years have passed.

If the lessor acts contrary to these provisions, he is obliged to pay compensation to his former tenant, not less than one year's rent paid in the last lease year.

Prohibition on re-rental; It is regulated as a time-limited prohibition that prevents residential or roofed workplace owners from aggravating their tenants by evicting their tenants and intending to rent them to a third party at a higher rent. The lessor's behavior contrary to this prohibition results in compensation liability towards the tenant.

It is understood that the provision of the law regulating the prohibition, in addition to prohibiting the lessor from re-renting the leased property to anyone other than the former tenant for 3 years after the lease is vacated, also regulates an exceptional case in favor of the lessor with the expression without justifiable reason. Therefore, in the presence of a justified reason that constitutes an exception, we cannot talk about the lessor being subject to this prohibition any longer.

In the old regulation, the term force majeure was used instead of justified reason. In light of the Supreme Court decision, we can give a few examples that can be considered within the scope of force majeure (just cause with the new regulation).

"The place evacuated due to need cannot be rented to anyone other than the former tenant for a period of three years unless there is a force majeure. The concept of force majeure is up to the discretion of the judge. Reasons such as the death of the person claiming need, the need for a workplace, the deterioration of the health of the person in need after the evacuation, and military service are considered force majeure." (Y4HD. 2000/10728 E.)

In addition, if the former tenant is not in a position to rent the leased property again (has moved from the city where the leased property is located, has been reassigned, or no longer needs the leased property), it can be accepted that the lessor has a justified reason.

IN ORDER FOR THE TENANT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION, IS IT REQUIRED FOR THE LEASED PERSON TO BE EVICTED BY COURT ORDER?

There are Supreme Court decisions that take the view that if the tenant voluntarily vacates the leased property based on the lessor's eviction notice, he no longer has the right to demand compensation from the lessor based on the prohibition of re-rental. However, there are also Supreme Court decisions that consider that if the tenant has evicted the leased property without a court order or enforcement action, he should be able to benefit from the provisions of the prohibition on re-letting.

TBK art. 6th HD of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which made a clear decision in this direction based on the justification of Article 355. In a decision dated 2014;

"By the law, it is envisaged to file a lawsuit for the eviction of the leased property and to evacuate the leased property as a result of the execution of the judgment regarding the eviction of the leased property, which will be given in the eviction case, through written execution. In the justification of the said article, this issue is stated as ensuring the eviction of the tenant from the leased property by enforcing the court decision taken by the lessor based on one of the reasons stipulated in the law. In the case at hand, the plaintiff cannot appeal to any court upon a notice sent by the defendants requesting the eviction of the leased property due to the need for a workplace. "In order for the plaintiff tenant to benefit from the provision of the said article, the rented property must be evacuated by a court decision. Therefore, while the request for financial compensation should be rejected, the decision to accept it in writing was not considered correct, and therefore the decision had to be reversed."

Although we state that there is no established consensus on this issue, we do not find this view to be lawful, contrary to the above Supreme Court decision, which restricts the tenant in exercising his right by requiring that the tenant's right to demand compensation from the lessor within the scope of TCO 355, the eviction must have occurred only by court order, and in a way penalizes the tenant who vacates the leased property with his consent upon notice.

CONDITIONS OF EVICTION CASE DUE TO THE NEED FOR A ROOF WORKPLACE

The case conditions we explained in the eviction case due to housing need are also valid here. Therefore, instead of making long, repetitive explanations, we prefer to be content with addressing the small but important differences in the lawsuits filed due to the need for a roofed workplace.

Differences in proving that the need for a roofed workplace is real and sincere;

•While the need of the lessor, who claims that the rented house is more economical for him because he is also renting or rented, is found to be real and sincere by the court, it is not sufficient for the lessor to just be renting in order to prove that the need for a roofed workplace is real and sincere. However, the lessor must be under threat of eviction or the required rented workplace must be at least as convenient as the workplace used by the tenant.

• The lessor who claims to need a workplace with a roof must also state the nature of the work he will do in that workplace while proving the need for a workplace. In order to decide on the eviction, the court, based on this statement, first investigates whether the rented workplace is suitable and suitable for the performance of the specified work.

• We said that the lessor who requests the evacuation of the workplace rented due to necessity must specify what business he will carry out there. If the work to be done is a job that requires expertise and the lessor does not have expertise in this field or if the necessary permits and licenses have not been obtained for the work to be done, the eviction case will be rejected.

• The fact that the work to be done in the rented property is outside the scope of his profession does not, on its own, require the rejection of the eviction lawsuit. In a Supreme Court decision on this issue, it was stated as follows; "The plaintiff's witnesses stated that the needy person is a graduate of the Faculty of Agriculture, works in temporary jobs, was not successful in the KPSS exams, returned from the military, is still vacant and does not have insurance, wants to run a coffee shop in the rented property, and therefore needs the rented property... In this case, according to the nature of the evidence collected, it should be accepted that the need for a workplace is real and sincere for the grandchild of the plaintiff, who still has no job. In addition, the needy person, who is a graduate of the Faculty of Agriculture, wants to do a job other than a job related to his profession, the need is genuine. and is not considered unreal" (Supreme Court 6th HD., 1.10.2015, E. 2015/7043, K. 2015/7734-Kazancı)

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION OF RENTING, AFTER THE TENANT'S EVACUATION OF THE ROOFED WORKPLACE DUE TO THE REASON RESULTING FROM THE LEASED PERSON

"The plaintiff stated that while he was a tenant in the shop located in the property purchased by the defendant, that he would use the rented property for his own needs, he looked for another place where he could do the same job, but since he could not find another place, he had to quit the job and evacuated the property. However, the defendant did not use the rented property himself and rented it to someone else after a while, and stated that he was upset about this situation and that his family was aggrieved. He wanted it to be given.

The court has partially accepted the case in terms of pecuniary damages and decided to pay the pecuniary compensation of 4,433.46 TL to the plaintiff, with legal interest accruing from the date of the lawsuit, to be collected from the defendant's heirs, and to reject the request for non-pecuniary damages."

2. EVICTION CASE OF THE LEASED PERSON DUE TO RECONSTRUCTION AND ZONING

Another situation in which the lessor may file an eviction lawsuit is under the heading of reasons arising from the lessor, TBK 350/2. It is regulated in the paragraph. It's like;

Lessor's lease agreement;

TBK 350/2 "If substantial repair, expansion or alteration of the leased property is necessary for the purpose of reconstruction or zoning and it is impossible to use the leased property during these works,

TBK 350/3 "…in fixed-term contracts, at the end of the period, in indefinite-term contracts, the company can terminate it by filing a lawsuit within one month, starting from the date to be determined by complying with the termination period and the periods foreseen for termination notification in accordance with the general provisions regarding rent."

CONDITIONS OF EVICTION CASE DUE TO RECONSTRUCTION AND ZONING

The lessor may terminate the lease agreement for residential or roofed workplace rentals, subject to the conditions and periods stipulated by law, based on the reason for the substantial repair, expansion or alteration of the leased property for the purpose of reconstruction or development. For this reason, when filing a lawsuit for eviction, not only the law but also the issues stipulated in the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court should be taken into account. The conditions that we will mention in this context and that need to be paid attention to are as follows:

•TBK 350/2. Pursuant to this paragraph, the right to sue, as a rule, belongs to the lessor in cases filed due to the substantial repair, expansion or alteration of the leased property for reconstruction or zoning purposes. However, it has been accepted in jurisprudence that the owner, who is not the lessor, can also file these lawsuits.

•The repairs and renovations planned to be carried out in the rented property must be for zoning purposes and at the same time essential works, residence in the rented property must not be possible during this time, and the project and license must be applicable in accordance with the zoning legislation. This issue is determined by expert experts.

In a decision of the 13th Supreme Court of Appeals, the importance of expert reports was expressed as follows;

"In the expert report dated 21.1.2013, prepared after the discovery made in the rented property, it is stated that the section to be used as a warehouse at the back of the rented shop will be separated by a wall, a toilet will be built in the immediate front adjacent part of the warehouse to be built, the storefront of the shop will be removed and rebuilt at the entrance of the shop, the floor of the shop will be ceramic coated and the ceiling will be manufactured as a suspended ceiling, and it is stated that it is not possible to carry out the said renovations without evacuating the defendant. Whether the repairs and renovations to be made are substantial and for development purposes. "In this respect, the expert report is not sufficient and suitable for making a decision. For this reason, while a detailed report should be taken and a decision should be made regarding the implementation of the approved project by a specialist expert in the location where the rented property is located, whether the repairs and renovations to be made in the real estate according to the project are essential works for zoning purposes and whether it is technically possible to reside in the rented property during the renovations and repairs, these issues were ignored and the decision had to be reversed because it was not considered appropriate to make a decision in writing as a result of an incomplete examination."

•In an eviction lawsuit filed for the purpose of repair, alteration or expansion on the building, it is required that the change or repair to be made has a zoning purpose, that is, a fundamental change that will bring the building to better standards. Since repairs or changes aimed solely at increasing income are not considered for zoning purposes in accordance with the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the eviction request is rejected.

•Lawsuits to be filed for the substantial repair, expansion or alteration of the leased property for the purpose of reconstruction or zoning must be filed at the end of the term in fixed-term contracts, and within one month from the date to be determined by complying with the periods stipulated for termination notification in Article 328 of this law in indefinite-term contracts. Pursuant to Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, if the lessor has notified the tenant in writing that he will file a lawsuit before or at the latest within the stipulated time for filing the lawsuit, the lawsuit can be filed until the end of an extended lease year following the notification.

•Re-leasing ban, regarding leased properties evacuated for reconstruction and development purposes Article 355/2 of the Turkish Code of Commerce. It is regulated in the article. According to the law, immovable properties vacated for reconstruction and zoning purposes cannot be rented to anyone other than the former tenant in their former state, without justifiable reason, before three years have passed. In addition, according to the regulation, the tenant has the priority right to rent the real estate that has been reconstructed and reconstructed in its new condition and with the new rental price. This right must be exercised within one month following the written notification made by the lessor; Unless this right of priority is terminated, the real estate cannot be rented to anyone else before three years have passed. If the lessor acts contrary to these responsibilities, he is obliged to pay compensation to his former tenant, not less than one year's rent paid in the last lease year, in accordance with the last paragraph of the same law article.

3. NEW OWNER'S CASE FOR EVICTION DUE TO NECESSITY

The person who subsequently acquires the leased property, that is, the new owner, also has the right to request the evacuation of the leased property due to necessity. TBK 351/1. Based on this paragraph, if the new owner is obliged to use the leased property for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or other persons he is obliged to look after by law due to housing or workplace needs, he may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit after six months, provided that he notifies the tenant in writing of the situation within one month starting from the date of acquisition. In this case, it is necessary to pay attention to the period and written notification requirement stipulated by law.

An example of the Supreme Court decision regarding the new owner's request for eviction due to necessity;

"The plaintiff, the owner, requested the evacuation of the newly acquired leased property on the grounds that there was a need for housing, as it was close to the house of his mother, Emine, who would take care of her newborn child…

Since the defendant gave birth to the plaintiff on 05.02.2013, the claim of the grandmother living close to the newborn baby to be cared for is not opposed, and the defendant party has given the eviction commitment for the date of 05.01.2013, dated 29.08.2012, it must now be accepted that the existence of the need is sincere, real and mandatory." It is as follows.

As can be seen, the condition that the need must be sincere, real and mandatory, as explained above, is strictly observed in order to make an evacuation decision.

Also, in accordance with TBK 351/2; The person who subsequently acquires the leased property may, if he wishes, exercise his right to terminate the contract due to necessity by filing a lawsuit within one month starting from the end of the contract period.

Even if there is no separate prohibition on re-letting of the leased property vacated by the new owner due to need, the obligations in TBK 355 will be valid for the new owner.

B-REASONS FOR EVICTION CASE ARISING FROM THE TENANT

1- CASE FOR RELEASE DUE TO RELEASE COMMITMENT

The first reason for an eviction lawsuit arising from the tenant is regulated in paragraph 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to TBK 352/1, "If, after the delivery of the leased property, the lessee undertakes in writing to vacate the leased property on a certain date, but has not evacuated it, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement by applying for enforcement or filing a lawsuit within one month starting from this date."

The lease agreement, which is intended to be terminated by an eviction lawsuit filed based on the reason in question, can only be terminated with the finalization of the court decision. If the tenant does not vacate the leased property until the court decision is finalized, the tenant's unjust occupation will come to the fore. If the conditions are met, the lessor may file an ecrimisil lawsuit .

The validity of this commitment, which the tenant must first make with his own free will, and the ability to file an eviction lawsuit based on this commitment depend on the existence of certain conditions. If we examine these conditions one by one;

a) Requirement of the evacuation commitment in written form: The validity of the evacuation commitment depends primarily on its being made in written form. Since the commitment given by the tenant will not be a valid commitment unless it is in writing, the lessor cannot request an eviction accordingly.

b) The condition that it includes the date of evacuation: An evacuation commitment is a unilateral declaration made by the tenant or an agreement signed with the lessor regarding the evacuation of the leased property on a certain date. The purpose of determining the date on which the leased property will be vacated is that the date specified in the commitment is clearly understandable as day-month-year.

The commitment to release, where the date of release was not clearly stated, was stated in a decision of the 12th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 09.03.202;

"The lease period has been decided as 3+2 years, starting from 01.05.2012, and at the end of this period, the tenant will vacate the property and deliver it to the lessor unconditionally." It was observed that there was a commitment in the form of … but the commitment did not include a specific date. Since the eviction date is not clearly stated in the evacuation commitment, it cannot be said that there is an evacuation commitment in the sense of Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations." It was stated that the case should be rejected.

c) The condition that the commitment should be given after the first lease agreement: It is very important that the tenant has free will when making a commitment stating that the rented property will be vacated on a certain date. Accordingly, the requirement that the commitment be given after the lease agreement protects the tenant against the lessor putting the tenant in a difficult situation by presenting the commitment to the tenant as a pre-condition of the lease agreement and preventing the tenant from making a commitment outside of his free will.

d) The condition that the commitment must be made by the tenant himself: If the lease has more than one tenant, it is not enough for one of them to give the eviction commitment. In other words, the commitment in question must be given by all tenants.

e) An eviction lawsuit based on an eviction commitment can only be filed by the lessor: The right to initiate enforcement proceedings and file an eviction lawsuit based on the eviction commitment given by the tenant belongs only to the lessor. The owner, who does not have the title of lessor, does not have the right to file a lawsuit based on commitment. However, the new owner, as the successor of the previous owner and the lessor, can file a lawsuit based on the commitment made during the time of the old owner.

f) The tenant's right to object to the signature: If the eviction commitment has not been issued ex officio by the notary or the signatures have not been certified by the notary and the tenant objects to the signature; The lessor cannot request the removal of the objection from the enforcement court in accordance with EBL 275/2. At this point, the lessor must file an eviction lawsuit.

g) Periods for eviction commitmentr: According to TBK 352/1, "If the tenant has undertaken to vacate the leased property on a certain date in writing but has not evacuated, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement by applying for enforcement or filing a lawsuit within one month starting from this date." The eviction lawsuit to be filed based on the commitment must be filed within one month following the committed date or enforcement proceedings must have been carried out based on the commitment within this period. Since the enforcement proceeding will maintain the period, a lawsuit can also be filed after one month has passed.

2-CASE FOR EVACUATION DUE TO TWO JUSTIFIED WARNINGS

The second reason for an eviction lawsuit arising from the tenant is Article 352/2 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to the article, it is a case for eviction due to two justified warnings. If the tenant who does not pay the overdue rent causes two justified warnings to be given to him, the lessor may now file an eviction lawsuit against the tenant if the necessary conditions are met due to two justified warnings.

TBK 352/2: "If the lessee has caused two justified warnings in writing to be given to him/her for not paying the rent within the rental period in rental agreements with a duration of less than one year, or within one rental year or a period exceeding one rental year in rental agreements with a duration of one year or more, the lessor may terminate the rental agreement through a lawsuit within one month starting from the end of the rental period and the end of the rental year in which the warnings were made in rental agreements with a duration of more than one year."

In order to file an eviction lawsuit due to two justified notices, first of all, two justified notices must be given to the tenant in accordance with the law and other lawsuit conditions must be met. These conditions;

a) The requirement for the existence of two justified notices: In order to file an eviction lawsuit, the existence of two justified notices is required. A warning to the tenant for unpaid rent debt can only be made after the rent becomes due. A warning sent for non-due rent debt will not be considered justified. Although the date to be taken as basis for the justification of the warning is the date when it is notified to the tenant, payments made after the notification do not prevent the occurrence of two justified warnings.

b) The requirement that the warning be made in accordance with the form requirement: The warning to be given to the tenant must comply with the written form requirement. In practice, a warning is usually sent through a notary. It is accepted in jurisprudence that payment orders can also be made by telegram or letter.

c) The mandatory information to be included in the notice must be present: The notice to be sent to the tenant must include the amount of the unpaid debts that are due and the months for which they belong.

d) The condition that two justified warnings must be made within a lease year: The two notices must belong to different months within a lease year. In indefinite contracts and in cases where the rent must be paid annually, two justified warnings do not occur.

e) The court in charge of the case of evacuation of the rented property due to two justified warnings is the Civil Courts of Peace. "The plaintiff's request is the request for the eviction of the rented property due to two justified warnings in accordance with Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This request is the type of case that must be filed and carried out in the Magistrates' Court, not in the specially authorized enforcement court. In this case, the judge is bound by the claims and defenses of both parties, according to Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, and does not rule on anything else. "While a decision of lack of jurisdiction should be given and the file should be sent to the competent Court of Peace, it is not correct to make a decision on matters that are not requested with a written justification."

f) Duration requirement in cases based on two justified notices: The lessor, from the end of the lease contract in lease contracts with a term of less than one year; For leases with a term longer than one year, the lease may terminate the lease through litigation within one month starting from the end of the lease year in which the warning was made.

3- EVICTION CASE DUE TO THE TENANT OR HIS SPOUSE HAVING A HOUSE SUITABLE FOR RESIDENCE WITHIN THE SAME DISTRICT OR MUNICIPALITY BORDERS

The last reason for an eviction lawsuit arising from the tenant is TBK art. It was regulated in 352/3. According to the article; "If the tenant or his/her spouse has a house suitable for habitation within the municipal borders of the same district or town, and if the lessor did not know this at the time of the establishment of the rental agreement, he may terminate the agreement through a lawsuit within one month starting from the end of the agreement."

In practice, it is seen that there are people who rent their own house for a higher price than the house they rent, even though they own a house. In such cases, if the lessor was not informed when the lease was signed, he may request the eviction of the leased property pursuant to this provision of law. If we examine the conditions for filing an eviction lawsuit in accordance with the 3rd paragraph of Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations;

a) Housing requirement belonging to the tenant or his/her spouse: There must be a residence suitable for habitation that is owned by the tenant or his/her spouse (outside the scope of the legal right to live separately). The house belonging to the defendant or his wife does not necessarily have to be deeded. If the sole owner of this residence is not the tenant or his/her spouse; In shared ownership, the majority of shareholders and stakeholders, and in cooperative ownership, all of them must consent to live in this house.

b) Habitable residence requirement: The residence belonging to the tenant or his/her spouse must be habitable. The availability of the house for occupancy; It is determined by examining the physical condition of the house and the social situation of the family, and taking into account the number of people in the household.

c) Residence condition within the municipal borders of the same district or town: The house belonging to the tenant or his/her spouse must be within the municipal borders of the same district or town where the rented property is located.

d) The condition that the lessor does not know about this situation: The lessor must not know that the tenant or his/her spouse owns a house when the lease agreement is established.

e)The fact that the tenant lives in the house belonging to the tenant or his/her spouse or that the house in the name of the defendant at the time the lawsuit is filed is sold during the trial has no effect on the case.

f)TBK art. Attention should be paid to the duration of the eviction lawsuit to be filed in accordance with Article 352/3. Accordingly, if the conditions mentioned above are met, the lessor must file a lawsuit within 1 month starting from the end of the lease agreement. Pursuant to TBK 353, if the lessor has notified the tenant in writing that he will file a lawsuit within the stipulated time for filing the lawsuit at the latest, the period for filing a lawsuit is deemed to have been extended for one lease year.