Prohibition of regulation against tenants – TBK m. 346: “No other payment obligation can be imposed on the tenant except for the rental price and side expenses. In particular, agreements that the penalty condition will be paid or subsequent rental costs will be due if the rental price is not paid on time are invalid.”.

Within the scope of this provision, it is necessary to address two issues :

The penalty condition cannot be foreseen for non-payment of the rental price in residential and roofed workplace rents.
The exemption condition cannot be foreseen for non-payment of the rental price in residential and roofed workplace rents.
The provision does not prevent the determination of a high rate of default interest by contract for the state of default. However, in respect of default interest in contracts in which the lessee is not a trader, TBK m. It is necessary to take into account 120/III.
The judgment is of a commanding nature. On the contrary, the provisions are strictly null and void. There is a partial invalidity.
EVICTION DUE TO TWO JUSTIFIED WARNINGS

TBK m. 352/II “short-term leases on the lessee within the lease period for a year; a year and longer-term lease or a lease in the lease a year for a period in excess of two years because he paid her rent had cause to be given notice in writing to right if the duration of the lease by the lessor in the lease than one year long term rentals starting from where the notification is made within a month of the end of the year, may terminate the lease by way of the case.

THE FORM OF THE WARNING

348 of the TCC. according to the article, the declaration of termination must be made in writing for it to be valid. In practice, the warning is withdrawn from the notary. A payment order sent through the enforcement agency also replaces a warning. It is necessary to clearly indicate in the warning which months the rental costs have not been paid for. The fact that the lessor generally wants the debt to be paid does not replace the justified warning. Otherwise, it is accepted that the warning will not be a justified warning in teaching and practice. In order for the warning to be justified, it does not need to contain a statement of termination of the contract.

The lessor must withdraw the warning. If there is a co-ownership relationship, it must be withdrawn unanimously in the co-ownership, with a majority of shares and stakeholders in the shared ownership. A warning must be given to all tenants. The Supreme Court also says that a warning to a single tenant is not a justified warning.

EVICTION PROCEEDINGS

Termination of the lease agreement due to two justified warnings is subject to the filing of an eviction notice. The right to sue belongs to the lessor. If there is a joint ownership relationship, the case should be opened unanimously in the joint ownership, with a majority of shareholders and stakeholders in the joint ownership. In case of transfer of the lease agreement, the new lessor may file for eviction based on the warnings received by the previous one. The defendant is a tenant. If there are more than one tenant, a lawsuit should be filed against them all.

DURATION OF FILING A LAWSUIT

The eviction case can be filed only at the end of the rental period. The eviction case must be filed within one month starting from the end of the lease period and the end of the lease year in which warnings are made for leases lasting more than one year. The duration is unfair. The expiration of a one-month period terminates the right to file for eviction. If there are conditions, an eviction case can be filed for the next lease period. TBK m. according to article 353, if the lessor has informed the lessee in writing that he will file a lawsuit within the period provided for the filing of the lawsuit no later than one year, the period for filing a lawsuit is considered extended for one year of the lease.

In a decision issued by the Supreme Court, “The withdrawal of two different warnings for failed lease receivables does not provide for two justified warning conditions. In this case, since there are no two justifiable caveats, it is not correct to issue an eviction order in writing, while the case should be decided to be dismissed. The provision must therefore be overturned.” By which he explained his provision that the notice request addressed to the creditor will be considered a single notice. (Supreme Court 3. HD, E. 2017/11179, K)

You can reach our other articles, sample decisions and petitions by clicking here