T.C.
\nSUPREME
\n3. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
\nPRINCIPAL NO: 2018\/1628
\nDECISION NO: 2018\/2674
\nDECISION DATE: 19.3.2018<\/p>\n
> LEASE RECEIVABLES-NOT TO SPECIFY THE RATE OF INCREASE IN RENT IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT\u2013TO FOLLOW UP THE EXECUTION WITH THE INCREASE OF THE RENT<\/p>\n
6098 \/ m.346<\/p>\n
Summary: when the lease agreement between the parties is examined, the contract 6. in the article \u201dat the end of the contract, the tenant accepts and undertakes to increase the rental fair price by % … in advance.”the arrangement is understood to have taken place. As the rate of increase is not specified in this provision, this increase requirement is not valid because it is not specific and specific. When the follow-up file within the scope of the file is examined, execution follow-up has been made over the monthly rental price of TL 440,since it is not possible to demand the monthly \u201dTL 400 \u201das an increase in the form of monthly\u201d TL 440TL ” without considering this direction by the court, the provision facility is against the<\/p>\n
Case: as a result of the court trial of the claim between the parties, the decision given for the acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendant’s attorney within the period; after the decision for the acceptance of the appeal petition, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary. :<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
The plaintiff said that the real estate at the relevant address was rented by the defendant with the lease agreement dated 30\/07\/2008 signed between the defendant and the defendant, that the defendant did not pay the rental costs from 30\/07\/2009 until 30\/05\/2010, for collection of unpaid rent costs Ankara 18. The execution Directorate has requested and sued the decision to collect from the defendant with the unpaid rental fee of TL 4,400.00 and the legal interest to process monthly stages, claiming that the legal follow-up has been passed in the 2011\/1648 principal file, and that the follow-up has been objected to by the defendant.<\/p>\n
Respondent , lease agreement B.K.\u2019s ex-wife R.Y. arguing that it was clear that it was arranged between the defendant,that the party of the contract was Ramazan Mane, and that his signature was obtained even though he was not the tenant and the guarantor, he demanded that the case be rejected primarily in terms of animosity ,otherwise on the basis.<\/p>\n
The court has decided to collect TL 4,400.00 from the defendant with the legal interest from the date of the case, and the decision has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney.<\/p>\n
1 -) in accordance with the articles in the file, the evidence based on the decision and the reasons required by law, and in particular the lack of a fault in the appreciation of the evidence, the defendant’s attorney must reject other appeals.<\/p>\n
2 -) in the concrete case, when the lease agreement dated 30.07.2008 arranged between the parties is examined, the contract 6. in the article \u201dat the end of the contract, the tenant accepts and undertakes to increase the rental fair price by % … in advance.”the arrangement is understood to have taken place. As the rate of increase is not specified in this provision,this increase requirement is not valid because it is not specific and specific. Ankara 18. When the execution Directorate’s 2011\/1648 follow-up file is examined, execution follow-up has been made over the monthly rent price of TL 440,since it is not possible to demand the monthly \u201dTL 400 \u201das an increase in the form of monthly\u201d TL 440TL ” without considering this direction by the court, the provision facility is against the<\/p>\n
Conclusion: the rejection of the other appellate appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the reasons described above,the HUMK of the provision for the reasons described in the second paragraph.nun 428. article 440 of Humk No. 1086 with the attribution of temporary Article 3 of HMK No. 6100. a unanimous decision was made on 19.03.2018, in accordance with the article, with the way to correct the decision being closed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 3. LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL NO: 2018\/1628 DECISION NO: 2018\/2674 DECISION DATE: 19.3.2018 > LEASE RECEIVABLES-NOT TO SPECIFY THE RATE OF INCREASE IN RENT IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT\u2013TO FOLLOW UP THE EXECUTION WITH THE INCREASE OF THE RENT 6098 \/ m.346 Summary: when the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,216,220,218,382],"yoast_head":"\n