T.C.
SUPREME
6. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Basis No: 2015/7088 Decision No: 2015/9126 D. Date: 27.10.2015

Court : Keşan Magistrate’s Court
Date: 27/01/2015
Number: 2014/612-2015/40

The decision on the eviction and receivables (rent receivables) case with the date and number written above, issued from the local court, was appealed by the plaintiff within the time limit, and all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary.
The case relates to a request for eviction and rent due to default. It was decided by the court that there was no place to decide on eviction because the real estate had been evicted, that the case was accepted in terms of the request that the lease would be received, and the provision was appealed to the attorney’s fee for the eviction decision by the plaintiff’s attorney.
17 Of The Law On Fees. mortar is necessary in the article over a year’s rent in case of evacuation, 28. Article 32 states that a quarter of the expenses that must be received will be received in advance, and the rest will be paid within two months of the decision.Article 30 states that subsequent proceedings cannot be carried out unless the fees to be received from judicial proceedings are paid. in the article, if it is understood that the value determined during the reasoning exceeds the value specified in the lawsuit petition, the reasoning will only be continued for that hearing, and the case cannot be continued Unless the advance decision and application fee on the missing value is completed until the following hearing. The case is related to the collection of the lease receivable and the request for eviction and is subject to relative expense. In the case, the total amount of receivables requested for collection and in terms of eviction, the relative decision and announcement fee must be taken over the one-year rental money. At the time of filing the lawsuit, advance fees were deposited over the amount of receivables requested for collection, but according to the annual rental price, the fees were not deposited in terms of eviction proceedings, as well as the lack of fees were not replenished during the trial. It is against the procedure and the law to examine the merits of the work by continuing to judge the missing fee.
The provision must therefore be broken.
Conclusion: HMK 6100 with the acceptance of Appeals for the reasons described above.or provisional 3 added By Law No. 6217.HUMK, in accordance with the provision of the article.in 428.in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 27/10/2015 to overturn the provision without examining other aspects, and to return the appeal fee received in advance to the appellant on request.