T.C.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
6. law office
Base No:2015/7088 Decision No:2015/9126 Date:27.10.2015

COURT : Kashan Magistrate’s Court
DATE : 27/01/2015
NUMBER : 2014/612-2015/40

The decision on the eviction and receivable (rent receivable) case, the date and number of which are written above, issued from the local court, was appealed by the plaintiff within the time limit, but all the papers in the file were read and discussed and considered as necessary.
The case concerns the claim that he will receive eviction and rent due to default. The court decided that there was no room to make a decision on eviction because the real estate had been evicted, the case was accepted from the point of view of the request that it would receive rent, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney in accordance with the power of attorney for the eviction decision.
17 of the Law on Fees. article 28 states that fees should be charged over a one-year rental fee in eviction cases. in its article, a quarter of the fee that must be received will be received in advance, and the rest will be paid within two months of the decision being made, 32.article 30 of the Article also stipulates that subsequent actions cannot be taken unless fees to be taken from judicial proceedings are paid. in the article, the reasoning is more than the value specified in the petition of the value determined during if it is to be understood that, alone continue to be the reasoning for that hearing, until the hearing is completed, subsequent omissions decide in advance on the value and ref fees cannot be continued until the case is covered. 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, a relative decision and an additional fee must be taken on the total amount of receivables requested to be collected and on the one-year rental money in terms of eviction. An advance fee was paid on the amount of receivables requested to be collected during the opening of the case, but no fee was charged for the eviction case according to the annual rental price, and the lack of fee was not replenished during the trial. It is against the procedure and the law to continue to judge the missing fees and to examine the merits of the work.
The provision must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION:HMK No. 6100 with the adoption 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.of 428.in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 27/10/2015 that the provision would be overturned without examining other aspects, and that the appeal fee, which was received in advance upon request, would be returned to the appellant.

You can read others by clicking here.