L
6th Civil Chamber 2013/14078 E. , 2014/6778 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT : Bursa 4th Civil Court of First Instance
DATE : 27/06/2013
NUMBER : 2010/37-2013/621
The decision of the local court regarding the compensation case with the date and number written above has been appealed by the defendant in due time, and all the papers in the file have been read and discussed and considered.
Lawsuit is related to the claim for compensation for wrongful termination. The court decided to partially accept the lawsuit and the judgement was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition that the immovable property subject to the lawsuit was leased to the defendant F..K., transferred to his client on 22/10/1997, the lease agreement was renewed every year and the last lease agreement dated 01.01. 2004 dated 01.01.2004, the defendant demanded the evacuation of the immovable property by notifying that it terminated the contract without giving any reason and started the procedures for the administrative evacuation of the immovable property in accordance with the Law No. 3091, and that his client had to evacuate the immovable property in the face of this coercion, and that he suffered damages due to unfair evacuation, and requested a decision to collect 10.000 TL compensation from the defendant.
In his reply petition, the defendant’s attorney declared that the defendant evacuated the immovable on his own will after the notification of the council decision and defended the rejection of the lawsuit. The court decided to collect 10.000 TL compensation from the defendant by stating that the lease agreement was terminated unfairly by the defendant, that the plaintiff’s right to claim compensation arose, that the material damage he suffered would be 12.000,00 TL, which is the 6-month amount of the monthly rent of 2.000 TL, which he paid in accordance with Article 264/2 of the CO.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement dated 01.04.2004 for one year. It is understood that the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement with the decision of the council, and upon the plaintiff’s failure to evacuate the leased property in accordance with this decision, the defendant requested to take action in accordance with Article 75 of the Law No. 2886, and upon this notification, the plaintiff evacuated and delivered the property on 07.02.2005. The court accepted that it was not possible to apply the Law No. 2886 on the immovables belonging to the municipality as of the date of the transaction and that the termination was not based on just cause.
During the continuation of the lease agreement made for a certain period of time, in order to terminate the agreement in accordance with Article 331 of the TCO (BK. 264.) due to important reasons, the lease relationship must become unbearable due to important reasons, and the termination declaration must be made by complying with the periods described in Articles 330, 368 (BK. 262 and 285) of the TCO, and Article 331 of the TCO cannot be applied in the case.
Pursuant to the principle of adherence to the contract, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions in the contract they have concluded and, as a rule, it is not possible to terminate the contract before its term. Otherwise
In this case, the party who terminates the contract without a just cause shall be liable for compensation. The unilateral termination of the contract by the lessor and the failure to deliver the workplace subject to the contract to the lessee is a breach of the contract in this context. In this context, the defendant is liable for compensation. Pursuant to Article 114/2 of the TCO, the provisions regarding tort liability shall also be applied in cases of breach of contract by analogy. For this reason, Article 52 of the TCO, which regulates the reduction of compensation in the liability arising from the defendant’s breach of the lease agreement, will be applied. In this context, the plaintiff tenant must also make the necessary efforts to find a new workplace where he can carry out his activities as a tenant following the termination.
As a result of this, it is necessary to determine the period in which the plaintiff can re-lease another workplace where he can carry out his activities as a tenant under the same terms and conditions, and the defendant lessor should be held responsible for the loss of earnings for this period. The court has not made a determination and evaluation regarding the period in which the plaintiff can re-lease a new workplace where he can carry out his activities as a tenant under similar conditions following the termination. The compensation amount that the plaintiff may request from the defendant lessor due to unfair termination should be determined in accordance with the principles and principles explained above. After this matter is fulfilled, the court should make a decision on the request, but it is not correct to make a written judgement with incomplete examination.
The judgement should be reversed for this reason.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 26/05/2014 that the appeal objections are accepted and the judgement should be reversed pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with the provisional Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 with the Law No. 6217, and the prepaid appeal fee should be returned to the appellant if requested.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.