Fees In Eviction Case
T.C.
Supreme Court
6th Civil Chamber
No:2015/7088 Karar No:2015/9126 K. Tarihi:27.10.2015
COURT : Keşan Magistrate Law Court
DATE : 27/01/2015
NUMBER : 2014/612-2015/40
The decision on the eviction and receivable (rent receivable) case given by the district court with the date and number written above has been appealed by the plaintiff in due time, and all the papers in the file have been read and discussed.
The lawsuit is related to the request for eviction and rent receivable due to default. The court decided that since the immovable was evacuated, it was not necessary to decide on the evacuation, and the case was accepted in terms of the rent receivable claim, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney for the attorney’s fee for the evacuation decision.
In Article 17 of the Law on Fees, it is stated that in eviction cases, a fee should be charged over one year’s rent, in Article 28, one fourth of the fee to be collected shall be taken in advance and the remainder shall be paid within two months from the date of the decision, in Article 32, unless the fees to be taken from judicial proceedings are paid, subsequent proceedings cannot be carried out and in Article 30. Article 30 stipulates that if it is understood that the value determined during the proceedings is more than the value stated in the lawsuit petition, the proceedings will continue only for that session, and the case cannot be continued until the following session unless the advance decision and judgment fee is completed over the deficient value. The lawsuit is related to the collection of the rent receivable and the eviction request and is subject to proportional fees. In the case of the total amount of receivables requested to be collected in the lawsuit and in terms of evacuation, a proportional decision and judgment fee should be taken over one year’s rent. While filing the lawsuit, the advance fee was paid over the amount of the receivable to be collected, but the fee was not paid in terms of the eviction case according to the annual rent, and the lack of fee was not fulfilled during the trial. It is contrary to the procedure and the law to continue the trial with the missing fee and to examine the merits of the matter.
The judgment should therefore be reversed.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 27/10/2015 to accept the appellate objections and to VACATE the judgment without examining the other aspects of the judgment in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with the provision of the provisional Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 with the Law No. 6217, and to refund the prepaid appeal fee to the appellant upon request.