ENTRANCE
Lease agreements are based on the principle that the parties transfer the right to use a specific real estate or movable property to the tenant. However, in some cases, the lessor may request to reclaim the leased property. One of the grounds for eviction regulated under Articles 350-352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) is “eviction due to need.” This article will evaluate the legal basis for eviction due to need, its application conditions, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
DEVELOPMENT
1-)Legal Basis:
According to TCC article 350/1;
1-) If the person is obliged to use the rented property as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or other persons he is obliged to look after by law,
2-) If the leased property requires major repair, expansion or modification for reconstruction or development purposes and the use of the leased property is impossible during these works,
In fixed-term contracts, it may terminate the contract at the end of the term, and in indefinite-term contracts, it may terminate the contract by filing a lawsuit within one month, starting from the date to be determined in accordance with the termination period and the periods foreseen for termination notification in accordance with the general provisions on rent.
According to TCC article 351;
1-) If the person who subsequently acquired the leased property is obliged to use it for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or other persons he is legally obliged to look after due to the need for a residence or workplace, he may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit after six months, provided that he notifies the tenant in writing within one month from the date of acquisition.
2-)The person who subsequently acquired the leased property may, if he wishes, exercise his right to terminate the contract due to necessity by filing a lawsuit within one month from the end of the contract period.
2-) The Need Is Real and Sincere
According to Supreme Court precedents, a claim of need must be proven with concrete evidence, not abstract evidence. The court will consider factors such as the landlord’s actual need for the property and the inability to meet this need with another property. For example, the landlord’s child’s impending marriage and the emergence of a housing need are generally accepted grounds for need.
For the landlord to file an eviction lawsuit, the need must have already arisen. An eviction lawsuit cannot be filed for a housing need that has not yet arisen or is not likely to arise in the near future. As supported by the Supreme Court, the landlord’s claim of need must have already arisen; otherwise, the landlord cannot file an eviction lawsuit based on an unmet need. Furthermore, the need must continue until the end of the lawsuit.
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court decision stated;(Court of Appeals Decision – HGK., E. 2017/1290 K. 2021/1411 T. 16.11.2021)
| “…As a rule, the need for a workplace must have arisen before the lawsuit is filed. An eviction lawsuit can also be filed for an imminent need for a workplace. The need must exist when the lawsuit is filed, that need must be genuine, sincere, and necessary, and the need must continue until the end of the lawsuit. An eviction order cannot be issued for needs that are genuine, sincere, and not necessary…” |
The lessor can prove their claim of need with any kind of evidence. The most significant presumption in this matter is that the lessor is also a tenant.
3-) Time for Filing a Case
The lessor may terminate the contract at the end of the fixed-term contract period, and in contracts of indefinite duration, by filing a lawsuit within one month from the date determined in accordance with the termination period and the periods foreseen for termination notification in accordance with the general provisions on rent.
The person who subsequently acquires the leased property may terminate the lease by filing a lawsuit six months later, provided that the tenant is notified in writing within one month of the acquisition date. They may also exercise their right to terminate the lease through a lawsuit filed within one month of the contract’s expiration date.
In fixed-term lease agreements, to file a lawsuit within one month of the lease renewal period, the landlord must receive the first rent of the new period with a reservation. There is no formal requirement for the document confirming the receipt of the rent with a reservation. However, a notice sent from a notary public or via the PTT e-telegram system provides the plaintiff landlord with easier proof of the matter.
The lessor may extend the period for filing a lawsuit by one year with written notice. However, the lessor may
If the tenant receives the first month’s rent without objection and fails to file an eviction lawsuit based on housing needs after the contract expires, and fails to provide written notice pursuant to Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the court will no longer be able to file an eviction lawsuit. Because the above-mentioned periods pertain to public order, they must be taken into account ex officio by the judge. Therefore, any agreement between the landlord and tenant to file a lawsuit before the end of the lease term is meaningless.
(Aydogdu and Kahveci, 2013: 601).
4-) Those in Need of Housing
By law, eviction lawsuits can be filed not only against the landlord, but also against his or her spouse, descendants, ancestors, and legal dependants. Furthermore, lawsuits cannot be filed against relatives up to the third degree.
5-) Prohibition of Use in Good Faith
According to Article 355 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a residence or workplace vacated due to necessity cannot be rented to anyone other than the former tenant for three years. Otherwise, the lessor becomes liable to pay compensation. However, the Court of Cassation has ruled that if the tenant evacuates the property voluntarily without a court order or through forced enforcement, the lessor is not obligated to pay compensation. In its decision of the 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, No. 2023/4399 K. 2024/2384, dated September 18, 2024,
| “…Based on the reasoning stated in the Regional Court of Justice decision appealed against, the aforementioned article of the law prohibits the subletting of the leased property to someone else without just cause if the lessor “ensures” the evacuation of the leased property, and the understanding that the conditions for compensation were not met because the plaintiff evacuated the property without any court decision or enforcement action, it was necessary to reject the plaintiff’s appeal and approve the decision found to be in accordance with procedure and law…” |
6-) Re-Leasing Prohibition
When the lessor ensures that the leased property is vacated for need, he cannot rent the property to anyone other than the previous tenant without a justified reason, until three years have passed.
Properties vacated for reconstruction and development purposes cannot be leased to anyone else in their original condition without just cause for three years. The former tenant has the right of first lease to the rebuilt or developed property in its new condition and at the new rent. This right must be exercised within one month of the lessor’s written notice; unless this right of first lease is terminated, the property cannot be leased to anyone else for three years.
If the lessor acts contrary to these provisions, he is obliged to pay compensation to the former tenant not less than one year’s rent paid in the last rental year.(Court of Appeals Decision – 3rd HD., E. 2017/4956 K. 2019/871 T. 7.2.2019)
| “..Article 355 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6100, titled “Prohibition on Re-Leasing,” states: “When the lessor ensures the evacuation of the leased property for a need, the lessor cannot, without just cause, rent the property to anyone other than the former tenant for a period of three years. … If the lessor violates these provisions, the lessor is obliged to pay compensation to the former tenant not less than one year’s rent paid in the last lease year.” |
But as we mentioned aboveIn its decision dated September 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeals, No. 3 HD, E. 2023/4399 K. 2024/2384, ruled that in order for the prohibition of renting to occur and the conditions for compensation to be met, the real estate must be evacuated by any court decision or forced execution.
| “…Based on the reasoning stated in the Regional Court of Justice decision appealed against, the aforementioned article of the law prohibits the subletting of the leased property to someone else without just cause if the lessor “ensures” the evacuation of the leased property, and the understanding that the conditions for compensation were not met because the plaintiff evacuated the property without any court decision or enforcement action, it was necessary to reject the plaintiff’s appeal and approve the decision found to be in accordance with procedure and law…” |
A-) In terms of real persons:
The right to file an eviction lawsuit based on housing needs belongs to the renter of the property.
The renter may be the owner himself, or there may be third parties who are not the owners.
Third parties who are not the renter or owner can also file an eviction lawsuit due to housing need. Similarly, a person who needs housing but is not the renter can also file an eviction lawsuit. The renter does not have to be the owner. A renter who is not the owner can also file this lawsuit. A Supreme Court decision also“According to the notice sent by the non-owner, the lessor, due to necessity, and containing the will to terminate, the owner should be accepted to file a lawsuit, the merits of the matter should be examined, and a decision should be made according to the result, but instead, a decision should be made to reject the property with written justification.”did not find it correct and decided that a lawsuit could be filed against the lessor who is not the owner. (Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber 2006/9443 E, 2006/12237 K).
Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber 2015/3244 E., 2016/892 K.In its numbered decision:“…The lessor does not have to be the owner in the lease agreement…”
-General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals Law No. 2013/1656 E. No. 2015/1160 K.In its decision numbered ”…argued for the dismissal of the case by stating that the owner of the leased property was the Istanbul Revenue Office Trustee Office and that the plaintiff H. Sports Club did not have the authority to lease the property.
The contract, which is the basis of the case and has a starting date of 07.11.2009 and a period of 2 years, was drawn up between the plaintiff Sports Club and the defendant company.THE LESSOR WHO ENTERED INTO THE LEASING AGREEMENT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE OWNER. SINCE THE AGREEMENT Dated 07.11.2009 AND FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS, WHICH WAS NOT CANCELLED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IS STILL VALID, THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE BINDING ON THE PARTIES.According to our Chamber’s practices, as adopted in the decision of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, dated March 31, 2004, and numbered 2004/6-197-2004/186, the Lessor sent a periodic notice and demanded the unpaid rent. In the defendant’s response to the case, it was understood that the rent for the months subject to the notice had been paid to the Istanbul Revenue Office Trustee Office, but was not paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, while a decision should have been made to collect the receivable and evacuate the rented property, the decision should have been overturned, as dismissing the lawsuit in writing was not correct.
If the property is a jointly owned property, an eviction lawsuit can be filed if all, several, or only one of the constituents have a housing need. As stipulated in Article 624 of the Civil Code, the eviction lawsuit must be filed with a majority of the constituents and constituents. If an eviction lawsuit is filed without a majority, the approval of the other constituents is sufficient for the case to proceed. (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2011/8483 E, 2011/13576 K.)
If only one of the co-owners is the lessor, that sole co-owner can file an eviction lawsuit based on housing need. If the property is jointly owned, all co-owners must consent to or participate in the lawsuit before an eviction lawsuit can be filed based on need.
B-) In terms of Legal Entities:
The issue of whether a legal entity can also file an eviction lawsuit based on housing needs is debated in the doctrine. One view argues that the provision is designed to meet the needs of individuals, and therefore, legal entities cannot file an eviction lawsuit under Article 350/b.1 of the TCC. Another view suggests that while the wording of the law suggests that the right to file a lawsuit is only granted to individuals, legal entities can also file an eviction lawsuit based on need, as supported by the Supreme Court of Appeals. In eviction requests based on the needs of a legal entity, a lawsuit can be filed based on the legal entity’s housing needs per se; an eviction lawsuit cannot be filed for the housing needs of a legal entity whose partner is a partner. Similarly, individuals cannot file an eviction request based on the housing needs of the legal entity of which they are partners or members.
CONCLUSION
A lawsuit for eviction based on need is a specific ground for eviction under the Turkish Code of Obligations, where the landlord terminates the lease based on the landlord’s need for housing or workplace for themselves or their relatives. This type of lawsuit can only be filed in favor of individuals specified by law and under specific circumstances, and is subject to strict legal scrutiny, both procedurally and substantively.
In practice, shaped by Supreme Court precedents, the fundamental requirement is that the need be genuine, sincere, and imperative. This need must persist not only at the time the lawsuit is filed but throughout the litigation process. Otherwise, the lawsuit may be dismissed for lack of legal merit. Furthermore, the deadlines for filing a lawsuit and the obligation to provide notice, which vary depending on whether the lease is for a definite or indefinite term, are also of procedural importance.
However, in accordance with Article 355 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the lessor is prohibited from renting the property, which he has vacated due to need, to anyone other than the former tenant for three years, and this provision serves as a limitation to prevent abuse by the lessor.
Furthermore, with mandatory mediation taking effect in 2023, exhausting alternative dispute resolution methods before proceeding with eviction proceedings has become a prerequisite for litigation. This regulation aims to both reduce the judicial workload and encourage reconciliation between the parties.
In conclusion, while a lawsuit for eviction based on need is an important right granted to the landlord in terminating the lease, the exercise of this right is subject to certain limitations and objective scrutiny. It is crucial for practitioners to conduct their assessments, particularly in light of criteria clarified by Supreme Court decisions, both to prevent loss of rights and to ensure legal certainty. In this context, supporting the claim of need with concrete and convincing evidence, rather than relying on an abstract statement, is the key to success in the case.
MOST WONDERED QUESTIONS IN THE EVICTION CASE DUE TO NEED
1-) What is an Eviction Case Due to Need? What Situations Does It Cover?
This type of lawsuit can be filed if the landlord or their relatives (spouse, descendants, ancestors, or legal dependants) need the property. It terminates the lease and evicts the tenant. It applies to both residential and commercial leases.
2-) For whom can a justification of need be presented?
The only persons listed in the TCC are: the landlord, his/her spouse, children or grandchildren, ancestors such as parents, and legal dependants. There is no explicit provision to support the case for other relatives (e.g., siblings).
3-) What conditions are required for the need to be accepted in the case?
The need must be genuine, genuine, imperative, and, if possible, immediate. Requests that are temporary, hypothetical, or based on the pursuit of other benefits (such as higher rent) are generally rejected.
4-) When can a lawsuit be filed? How does the time limit work?
In fixed-term contracts:Within one month of the contract expiration. This period may be extended by one year of rent if a notice is sent.
In indefinite-term contracts:For each 6-month period, a warning must be sent at least 3 months before the end of the period and a lawsuit must be filed within 1 month thereafter.
5-) Is it mandatory to send a notice?
In fixed-term contracts:Sending a notice is not mandatory.
In indefinite-term contracts:Sending a notice is a legal obligation and a requirement of the process.
6-) Is there a ban on re-letting?
According to Article 355 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a landlord who has been evicted due to need cannot rent the property to anyone other than the former tenant for three years. Otherwise, the former tenant may claim compensation (at least for the last year’s rent).But as we mentioned aboveIn its decision dated September 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeals, No. 3 HD, E. 2023/4399 K. 2024/2384, ruled that in order for the prohibition of renting to occur and the conditions for compensation to be met, the real estate must be evacuated by any court decision or forced execution.
| “…Based on the reasoning stated in the Regional Court of Justice decision appealed against, the fact that the above-mentioned article of the law prohibits the subletting of the leased property to someone else without a justifiable reason if the lessor “ensures” the evacuation of the leased property, and that the conditions for compensation were not met because the plaintiff evacuated the property without any court decision or enforcement action, it was necessary to reject the plaintiff’s appeal and approve the decision found to be in accordance with the procedure and law…” |
7-) Which is the competent court?
The competent court is the Civil Court of Peace. The competent court is the court where the property is located. If the contract stipulates otherwise, the courts of the locality may also have jurisdiction.
😎 What are the costs and duration of the lawsuit?
In eviction cases, litigation costs are generally calculated based on the annual rent, and the advance payments for fees and expenses vary depending on the annual rent. For example, in a case with a single landlord and a single tenant with an annual rent of 120,000 TL, the total advance payments for fees and expenses will be 4,969.10 TL as of 2025. Similarly, for a property with an annual rent of 1,200,000 TL,In an eviction case involving a single lessor and a single tenant, the total advance on fees and expenses is 23,412.80 TL as of 2025. The average duration of the case is between 6 months and 2 years.
9-) How does the process work if a new owner is needed?
If the person who subsequently acquires the leased property is required to use it as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or other persons he is legally obliged to look after, he may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit after six months, provided that he notifies the tenant in writing of the situation within one month from the date of acquisition.
The person who subsequently acquired the leased property may, if he wishes, exercise his right to terminate the contract due to necessity by filing a lawsuit within one month of the end of the contract period.
10-) Should I apply to a mediator?
Yes. As with other rental disputes, mediation is mandatory for eviction requests. A lawsuit cannot be filed without consulting a mediator. Mediation is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit. If mediation is not initiated before the lawsuit commences, the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds without even addressing the merits.
11-) Is a temporary need enough?
No. The need stipulated in the TCC must be genuine, sincere, and ongoing. Temporary or short-term needs are not considered sufficient.
12-) How should a notice be sent?
Sending a warning through a notary or via the PTT E-Telegram system is the most legally reliable method and provides a great advantage in terms of proof during the process.
13-) Can the tenant extend the process?
The tenant may object to the requirement; evidence, including witnesses, discovery, and expert witnesses, may be presented later. The court will decide based on the reality of the need. The objection process may extend the case. The decision-making process may take longer depending on the number of witnesses reported in the case and the number of witnesses the court hears. Courts generally hear a certain number of witnesses (for example, two) in a single hearing. If the court decides to hear all witnesses in a case with eight witnesses, the number of hearings, and therefore the trial process, will be extended. Some courts may issue an eviction order in a single hearing without hearing any witnesses.
14-) If the lessor has more than one real estate, is the eviction request valid?
The existence of other properties owned by the lessor does not automatically eliminate the need. However, the court will evaluate whether the other properties meet the need. If another property owned by the lessor is capable of meeting the need, the lawsuit may be dismissed as frivolous. Criteria such as the property’s size, location, and suitability for its intended use are important factors.
15-) What tools are used to prove the claim of need?
The burden of proof of need rests with the plaintiff, the landlord. Documents such as witness statements, official documents (residence certificate, health report, building permit), financial status documents, civil registration records, and divorce decrees can be used as evidence. Because need is a subjective concept, the credibility and consistency of the evidence is crucial. The Supreme Court of Appeals does not consider proof based solely on witnesses sufficient; it requires supporting documentation, if possible.
16-) Under what conditions can an eviction lawsuit be filed in shared ownership?
In cases of joint ownership, the approval of a majority of the stakeholders is required to file an eviction lawsuit. According to Supreme Court precedents, a single stakeholder may file a lawsuit, but the consent of all other stakeholders must be obtained during the litigation process. Otherwise, there is a risk of dismissal due to lack of standing. This is important for the collective exercise of property rights.
17-) Does the finalization period of the eviction decision create an obligation for the tenant to evacuate?
Eviction orders are decisions that can be enforced before they become final. Following an eviction order issued by a local court, enforcement proceedings can be initiated to evict the tenant. If the tenant does not wish to be evicted, they cannot stop the eviction process unless they deposit the necessary security deposits, obtain a deferral document from the enforcement office, and obtain a Deferral of Enforcement (Suspension of Enforcement) from the Enforcement and Civil Courts. If the local court’s decision is final, a stay of execution cannot be issued. In eviction cases involving an eviction undertaking, this matter remains controversial, as the Supreme Court of Appeals has differing decisions on whether a stay of execution can be issued.
18-) In what situations is the sincerity of the need questioned?
The sincerity of the need is questioned by the court, especially in the following cases:
-The lessor is not in a position to meet the economic needs.
-The need was declared only to prepare the ground for evacuation.
– Request to transfer the real estate to third parties
-Renting to another tenant shortly after the lawsuit was filed
In these cases, the courts may rule that the claim is malicious and fraudulent.
Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Eviction Case Due to Need:
1-) Decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, numbered 2014/3336 E., 2014/4259 T., dated 02.04.2014:
| “…In cases based on a claim of need, it must be proven that the need is real, sincere, and necessary. The fact that the person in need lives in a rented property is sufficient to establish the need, and if there is no dispute on this issue, there is no need to prove the need…” |
2-) Decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, numbered 2015/424 E., 2015/1619 T., dated 19.02.2015:
| “...Considering the age of the plaintiff and his wife, it has been determined that the building in question has an elevator in the basement parking lot, the fact that his daughter and grandchildren live in three separate apartments in the same building, and the fact that the building where the plaintiff lives is accessed by stairs with ramps and landings from the road, constitutes an obstacle. Considering that the place in question is superior to the plaintiff’s residence, and that his daughter and grandchildren live in the building where the property is rented, it must be accepted that the need is real, sincere, and necessary. |
3-) Decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, numbered 2005/9523 E., 2005/10887 K., dated 28.11.2005 (Decision regarding the continuation of the need during the trial):
| “…The existence of a need at the time the lawsuit was filed is not sufficient; this need must persist throughout the trial. Regarding our case: It is clear from witness testimony and the entire file that the plaintiff’s spouse, who is currently living in Istanbul and in need, has not yet transferred his residence to Kadirli. Release cannot be ordered due to a need that has not yet arisen. In this case, since the need is not genuine or compelling, it is incorrect to accept the case when it should have been dismissed. Therefore, the judgment must be overturned. |
4-) 3rd Civil Chamber 2017/2358 E., 2017/2601 K.:(Decision on the evacuation of a workplace due to necessity, the plaintiff in the case of an evacuation due to necessity being a commercial company, the need for a commercial company to file an evacuation due to necessity, the subject of necessity (need) must be present in the company’s articles of association)
| “…The plaintiff company owns and leases the property in question. The lawsuit was filed based on the company’s needs. The plaintiff company declared that it would operate the leased bread factory and requested the evacuation of the property. As the plaintiff is a commercial company, the work to be done on the leased property must be among the company’s areas of activity. |
5-) 3rd Civil Chamber 2017/6483 E., 2019/2527 K.:(Violation of the re-letting ban in case of eviction due to necessity, Determination that the re-letting ban has been violated, Decision that if the tenant has vacated the rented property on their own, without filing an eviction lawsuit due to necessity, and not as a result of a court decision, but upon a verbal or written notice, the conditions for compensation due to the re-letting ban will be deemed not to have been met)
| “…According to TCC Article 355/1, when the lessor ensures that the leased property is vacated for a need, the lessor cannot rent the property to anyone other than the former tenant without just cause for three years, and according to TCC Article 355/3, if the lessor acts contrary to these provisions, the lessor is obliged to pay compensation to the former tenant not less than one year’s rent paid in the last rental year. |
6-) 3rd Civil Chamber 2017/6483 E., 2019/2527 K.:(The decision regarding the fact that the prohibition on re-letting shall not be deemed to have been violated if the tenant vacates the rented property upon verbal or written notice, without filing an eviction lawsuit due to need/need and without obtaining an eviction by court order)
| “…The lease agreement was notified that it would not be renewed, and the plaintiff was requested to vacate the property six months after the notice was served. Accordingly, considering the above explanations, the leased property was vacated by the plaintiff on January 1, 2012, following the notice’s service. Since the defendant filed an eviction lawsuit based on necessity and the court decision resulting from this lawsuit were not the basis for eviction, the compensation conditions stipulated in Article 355 were not met. |
7-)The existence of the needs of the owner living in the lodging must be accepted.
| “In order for an eviction decision to be made, it must be accepted that the claim of need is real, sincere and necessary. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S WIFE LIVES IN THE HOUSING TOGETHER WITH THE PLAINTIFF AND PAYS THE RENT. The fact that the plaintiff lives in the rented house together with his wife and pays the rent constitutes a presumption of the existence of need.NO ONE CAN BE FORCED TO LIVE IN THEIR HOUSING RESIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THEIR REQUEST TO LIVE IN THEIR HOME.The plaintiff’s witnesses testified in support of the claim. In this case, the written dismissal of the case, while the decision to vacate the leased property should have been accepted as a need, was deemed erroneous, and the judgment had to be overturned. (Y.6. HD, 19.12.2002, E. 2002/7744, K. 2002/7999) |
| -“In eviction cases based on housing grounds, the fact that a person in need lives in a rented property is the primary evidence of the existence of need.” (Court of Appeals, 3rd Civil Chamber, dated 23.01.2019 and E. 2018/7751, K. 2019/493) –“In cases based on housing need, the fact that the person in need lives in a rented place is sufficient to meet the need..Moreover, the plaintiff’s need for the property was confirmed by witness statements.In this case, while it was necessary to decide on the defendant’s release by accepting that the need was real, sincere and necessary, the decision to dismiss the case with written justification was not deemed correct and required reversal.”(Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber 2018/1050 E., 2018/2136 K.) –“Since there is no dispute that the plaintiff lives in a rented house, it is accepted that the need is real, sincere and necessary.While it is necessary to decide to release the defendant, it is not correct to decide to reject the case with written justification.”(Court of Appeals 6th HD, E. 2014/3336 K. 2014/4259 T. 2.4.2014) “It is a person’s legal right to reside in his own property. His residence is his father’s house. “Even if it were, it would not change this situation.” (Court of Appeals, 6th Civil Chamber, dated 04.03.1988 and numbered E. 1987/15452, K. 1988/3325) “The person in need of a lawsuit is living in a rented property and an eviction lawsuit has been filed against him. In eviction cases based on housing reasons, the needy person living in a rented house “There is no need to prove the condition of being under threat of eviction. The fact that the person in need lives in a rented accommodation is the primary proof of the existence of need.” (Court of Appeals, 6th Civil Chamber, dated 07.03.1988 and E. 1987/15849, K.1988/3446) |
The Importance of Legal Support
Tenancy law, eviction cases, and contractual disputes require technical knowledge, legislative expertise, and in-depth expertise in judicial practices. While the legal provisions are clear, each case has its own unique circumstances, and even a small mistake can lead to loss of rights. Therefore, working with an experienced attorney from the beginning of the process is crucial to determining the right strategy, protecting your rights, and achieving the swiftest resolution.
It’s important to remember that every step taken during the litigation process has legal and financial implications. A professional lawyer will guide you not only in preparing the petition but also in gathering evidence, representing the court, negotiating, and pursuing potential alternative solutions.
In order not to risk your rights and to manage the process safely, it is recommended that you consult a specialist lawyer.