04 Dec SINCE THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE AN ACTIVE HOSTILITY LICENSE, IT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE ON THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM
T.C SUPREME COURT 8.Legal Department Base: 2018/ 14999 Decision: 2018 / 18937 Decision Date: 20.11.2018
ABSTRACT: The case is related to the request to remove the objection to the follow-up initiated for the collection of the lease receivable. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement with an initial date and a period of five years, which is based on the case and based on the decisionthere is no dispute between the parties about the lease agreement with a five-year term. As the lessor on the front side of the lease agreement … Kim Amb. Tic. A.Sh. it has been written and the signature section of the contract has been signed by the plaintiff … (representing 147/200) and … (53/200 shares) by striking the company stamp. In the face of this arrangement of the lease agreement, it is necessary to accept that the lessor is the company. Since the driver’s license is related to public order, it is a matter that should be taken into account by the court itself. Therefore, the court decided to reject the request because the plaintiff did not have an active hostility driver’s license, and the decision had to be overturned because it was not correct to make the decision.
(6098 P. K. m. 136, 331) (6100 Pp. K. Late. m. 3) (2004 P. K. m. 366)
Between the parties, and the above-described case by the court in the trial in the case and the verdict to the rejection of an appeal by the plaintiff’s attorney, it has been decided upon, examined dairec file, duly noted.
The plaintiff creditor requested the collection of a total of TL 36,890.00 of the rent receivable, including TL 5,270.00 for December 2015 and TL 31,620.00 for the next six months of the lease, with the enforcement proceedings initiated on 17.12.2015 based on the written lease agreement dated 01.09.2013, the payment order was issued to the debtor company it was notified on 22.12.2015. The respondent debtor company stated in the appeal petition dated 28.12.2015 that he was a tenant at the current address until 17.11.2015, that all leases were fulfilled as long as the lessor was used, even if his client did not use the lessor 11.ay and 12.as a result of the fire, the raw materials and machine equipment belonging to his client also became unusable, so the immovable property could not be used by his client’s company after 17.11.2015, since the immovable property has not been made available, Article 331 of the TCC of the contract.16.12.2015 according to the article reported that there had been on the date of termination, the reason for the fire exit due to the negligence of the property owner, the plaintiff the right of their imprisonment when establishing your client’s estate, and law that was contrary to the principles of the right to the prison to prison due to the removal of the right who didn’t come up to 6 month’s rent rent for the month of December, a letter of credit and unused by the current client file that he was admitted to the execution of his client’s creditors were free of any debt, he informed that the lease agreement between them was terminated on 16.12.2015 for good reason, therefore, he objected to the right to imprisonment and the right to imprisonment, as well as to the follow-up initiated by cashing out the movable pledge filed within a 15-day period, all receivables and fer dec. After the payment order was challenged by the respondent debtor company, the plaintiff applied to the creditor’s executive court and asked for the objection to be removed.
The defendant’s attorney stated during the trial that the condition of the case had not been fulfilled, that his client … Kim Amb. Tic. A.He claimed that he had entered into a lease agreement with Sh, that the plaintiffs … were partners of his company, that the company was a legal entity, therefore the plaintiffs did not have a driver’s license to participate, and that the case should be dismissed in due course first.
The court found that the real estate subject to rent was burned on 17/11/2015, it became clear that the real estate had become unusable, the contract was terminated with a notice dated 16.12.2015, the real estate subject to rent lost its nature as a real estate, Article 136 of the Code of Obligations.according to Article 331 of the Code of Obligations, at the same time, it is necessary to accept that the contract has expired.according to the article, it is understood that the conditions of termination have been formed and the lessee has terminated the contract, the legal conditions have been fulfilled, and the case has been decided to be dismissed, and the decision has been appealed by the deputy plaintiff.
The case is related to the request to remove the appeal against the follow-up initiated for the collection of the lease receivable.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the 5-year lease agreement dated 01.09.2013, which is based on the lawsuit and is based on the provision, for a period of 5 dec. As the lessor on the front side of the lease agreement … Kim Amb. Tic. A.Sh. it has been written and the signature section of the contract has been signed by the plaintiff … (representing 147/200) and … (53/200 shares) by striking the company stamp. In the face of this arrangement of the lease agreement, it is necessary to accept that the lessor is the company. Since the driver’s license is related to public order, it is a matter that should be taken into account by the court itself. Therefore, the court had to decide on the rejection of the request because the plaintiff did not have an active hostility driver’s license, while the decision had to be overturned because it was not correct to make a decision in writing.
Conclusion: HMK No. 6100 with the acceptance of appeals for the reasons described above.or temporary 3, which was added by Law No. 6217.according to the provisions of the article, HUMK.flour 428.violation of the decision in accordance with Article 366/3 of the IIK by the parties. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 20.11.2018 that a request for correction of the decision may be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the refund of the down payment to the appellant upon request. (¤¤)
No Comments