Rent Receivable – Cancellation Of Objection, Evidential Value Of Email Printouts Supreme Court Decision
Summary:
The defendant claims to have sent the following to the plaintiff Muharrem: “… As of May 1, 2011, I moved into the house, which amounts to 7,500 TL over 15 months. Accordingly, my rent payment period ends on 30.8.2012. I need to pay you rent as of 01.09.2012. I would appreciate it if you could send me an account number for the payment…“ based on the printout of the email with this content and the document titled ”delivery receipt” dated 27.08.2013, signed by Y.. Y.., who they claim is the defendant’s father-in-law, dated August 27, 2013, titled “Delivery Receipt,” stating that the residential property belonging to the plaintiffs was delivered to the plaintiffs’ attorney. According to Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure, data such as written or printed texts, documents, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, image or sound recordings, as well as data in electronic media and similar information carriers, are accepted as evidence for the facts in dispute.
T.C.
Court of Cassation
6th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2014/1637
Decision No: 2014/11938
Date: 5.11.2014
The decision regarding the appeal for the cancellation of the objection dated and numbered above, issued by the local court, was appealed by the plaintiffs within the specified time limit. All documents in the file were read, and the necessary deliberations were made.
The case concerns the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of rent and the claim for compensation for denial of enforcement. The court ruled to dismiss the case, and the ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney.
The plaintiffs’ attorney summarized in the petition that their clients, as owners of the property located at G..C./…../ …..No:…./…. Antalya, to the defendant for residential use under a verbal lease agreement for a monthly rent of TL 650.00 as of January 1, 2011, and that the defendant-tenant sent an email to the plaintiffs’ email address on June 30, 2012, stating that he had moved into the house as of May 1, 2011, and that he had paid the 15-month rent of TL 7,500.00. S.., stating that he had moved into the house as of May 1, 2011, and requested that an account number be sent to him to pay the 15-month rent of 7,500.00 TL, but that he did not pay the rent. The plaintiff initiated enforcement proceedings against the defendant on December 20, 2012, through the Antalya 15th Enforcement Directorate’s file no. 2013/2759 on December 20, 2012, and that the remaining rent debt of 13,600 TL, after deducting 2,000 TL in renovation expenses from the 24 months of unpaid rent from the beginning of the rental relationship until the date of enforcement, was requested to be collected. The defendant objected to the proceedings, claiming that they had no debt, but in the email they sent, they clearly acknowledged the rental relationship and the existence of the rent debt. The plaintiff stated that the defendant’s objection was unjust and in bad faith and requested that the objection be dismissed and that compensation for denial of enforcement be awarded. The defendant’s attorney argued that there was no rental relationship between his client and the plaintiffs, that there was no written rental agreement, and that his client did not write the email mentioned in the plaintiff’s petition, requesting that the case be dismissed. The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether a lease relationship existed. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code, unless otherwise provided by law, each party is obliged to prove the existence of the facts on which they base their claim. According to this provision, the lessor must prove the existence of the lease relationship and the terms of the agreement.
According to the annual rent amount claimed by the plaintiffs, the contract must be proven by a written document in accordance with Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. The plaintiffs-landlords failed to present a written document, and the defendant claimed that it was sent to Muharrem, one of the plaintiffs, stating, “… I moved into the house as of May 1, 2011, for 15 months at 7,500 TL. Accordingly, my rent payment period ends on 30.8.2012. I need to pay you rent as of 01.09.2012. I would appreciate it if you could send me an account number for the payment…“ and the document titled ”delivery receipt” dated 27.08.2013, signed by Y.. Y.., who they claim is the defendant’s father-in-law, dated August 27, 2013, titled “Delivery Receipt,” stating that the residential property belonging to the plaintiffs was delivered to the plaintiffs’ attorney. According to Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure, data such as written or printed texts, documents, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, image or sound recordings, as well as data in electronic media and similar information carriers, are accepted as evidence for the facts in dispute. Article 202 of the same law states that “In cases where proof by deed is mandatory, witnesses may be heard if there is prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is a document that, while not sufficient to prove the legal transaction in question in its entirety, indicates the possibility of the legal transaction and has been provided or sent by the person or representative against whom it is asserted.”
In this case, the court should have considered whether the email and delivery receipt relied upon by the plaintiff could be accepted as prima facie evidence within the framework of the provisions specified by the court, and if the conditions were met, the plaintiff should have been given the opportunity to prove his claim with witnesses, and a decision should have been made accordingly. However, it was incorrect to render a written decision based on insufficient investigation.
The ruling should therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections are accepted, and in accordance with the ruling of Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking into account the provisions of the temporary Article 3 added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 by Law No. 6217, the ruling is OVERTURNED. and the advance appeal fee, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants. This decision was made unanimously on November 5, 2014.