In The Case Filed Due To Futile Occupation There Is a Lease Relationship Between The Parties To The Lease

12 Jun In The Case Filed Due To Futile Occupation There Is a Lease Relationship Between The Parties To The Lease

T.C. Supreme Court 3.Legal Department E: 2017/3309, K: 2017/16796, K.T.: 30.11.2017

As a result of the court judgment of the case for damages between the parties, upon the appeal of the provision for dismissal of the case in terms of duty, by the attorney of the plaintiff within the period; after the decision to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary.:

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the real estate subject to the lawsuit, that the defendants occupied the real estate unfairly, and that the defendants prevented unfair interference with the real estate and requested the collection of the unfair occupation compensation of 25.000 TL with their eviction from the real estate.

The defendant … has asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that he rented the property from the former owner and was not an unjustified occupant.

The court ruled against duty on the grounds that the court in charge was a magistrate court due to the lease agreement presented by the defendant, and the sentence was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy.

No. 6100, which came into force on 01.10.2011, is the 4th law governing the duty of the Magistrates’ Courts of HMK.in accordance with paragraph 1/A of the article, all disputes, including claims arising from the lease relationship, are subject to separate provisions relating to the eviction of the leased real estate by way of execution and Bankruptcy Law, and the cases brought against these cases fall under the duty of the magistrate court. … Unlike HMUK No. 1086, in this arrangement, the settlement of all disputes arising from the relationship of rent, such as eviction, receivables, compensation, determination of tenancy title without any amount discrimination, is shown as a magistrate’s court.

26/1 of HMK 6100. according to the article “the judge is bound by the results of the parties ‘ request; he cannot decide more than ten or anything else. Depending on the situation, the demand may decide less than the result.”

The case was opened with a bet that the defendants occupied the immovable subject of contention, and that the request stemmed from the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 and the settlement of the dispute was settled by law No. 6100 of Law No. 2/1. in accordance with the article, it is no doubt that the Court of First Instance has a duty.

In this case, it is not right for the court to examine the merits of the work, to dismiss the case if it is determined that there is a legally valid lease relationship between the parties, or to establish a written provision while the intervention should be decided in terms of semen and ecrimisil.

Conclusion: without taking into account the principles described above, the provision in written form is without hit, the appeal appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision Humk’s 428.article 440 of Humk No. 1086 with the provisional Article 3 attribution of HMK No. 6100.a unanimous decision was made on 30.11.2017, in accordance with the article, with the way to correct the decision being closed.