ENTRANCE
Eviction lawsuits filed by a new owner based on the purchase (acquisition) of a property constitute an area of tenancy law that is both frequently encountered in practice and normatively protected by special regulations. These lawsuits allow the new owner, in the event of a change of ownership of the leased property, to terminate the lease and request the eviction of the tenant due to personal or family needs. The primary regulation on this issue in Türkiye is Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO); practice and jurisprudence focus on issues such as the interpretation of the regulation, procedural timeframes, and proof of notification.
DEVELOPMENT
1-) Legal Basis and Purpose of the Regulation
Article 351 of the TCC grants the new owner, in the event of a subsequent acquisition of a leased property, the right to terminate the lease, subject to certain procedural requirements, if the new owner is required to use the property as a residence or workplace for themselves, their spouse, descendants, ancestors, or legal dependants. The purpose of this provision is to establish a reasonable balance between the protection of the property and the protection of the tenant, and to legally safeguard the new owners’ personal needs after the acquisition.
2-) Notification and Litigation Periods
-One month written notice (warning) requirement:The new owner must notify the tenant with a notice within one month from the date of acquisition of the property; this notice must clearly state the acquisition date and the reason for need.
-Law to file a lawsuit — six months waiting period or the period following the end of the contract period:After proper service of the notice, the new owner may file an eviction lawsuit at least six months after the date of acquisition, in accordance with the waiting period stipulated by law; alternatively, the possibility of filing a lawsuit within one month following the end of the lease agreement is also granted.
Discussions regarding these procedures attempt to establish uniformity of practice regarding the date from which the six-month period begins (the acquisition date or the date of notification of the notice) and the formal requirements for the notice. In practice, the majority agrees that the acquisition date is considered the starting point; however, the requirement for proof of notification is also crucial.
3-) The Reason for Need Must Be Real and Sincere
The “need” justification put forward by the new owner must be continuous, genuine, sincere, and compelling. A simple plan or potential future use does not provide concrete sufficiency; the court will evaluate the nature of the new owner’s claim of need, the existence of alternative housing/workplaces, their family situation, and their health and economic circumstances. Furthermore, the specific circumstances determine who will be considered the new owner or their legal dependents. It is not sufficient for the need to exist at the time the lawsuit is filed. The need must also exist throughout the trial.
4-) Which Court Has Jurisdiction and Authority?
The competent court is the Civil Courts of Peace.The competent court is the court where the real estate is located.
5-) Burden of Proof and Evidence
The new plaintiff owner is responsible for proving the acquisition date, the notification of the notice, and the reality of the reason for the need. The evidence in this context is as follows:
– Title deed or document showing the acquisition,
-Notary/registered notice and notification documents (or notary annotation),
-Documents showing family status (population records, health reports, etc.),
– Determinations showing that there is no alternative residence or workplace,
-Expert reports and discovery reports, if necessary.
6-) How Long Does the Trial Take? What is the Case Value? How is the Appeal Limit Determined? How Much Are the Case Costs?
Generally, litigation costs in eviction cases are calculated based on the annual rent, and the advance payments for fees and expenses vary according to the annual rent. For example, in a case with a single tenant and a single lessor with an annual rent of 120,000 TL, the total advance payments for fees and expenses would be 4,969.10 TL as of 2025. Similarly, in an eviction case involving a single lessor and a single tenant with an annual rent of 1,200,000 TL, the total advance payments for fees and expenses would be 23,412.80 TL as of 2025. The average duration of a lawsuit is between 6 months and 1 year. If the plaintiff submits all necessary notices, notices, and other required documents, and the court completes any missing documents by summoning them before the hearing, the lawsuit will automatically be shortened. If all the documents are completed, an eviction decision can be issued at the first hearing.
The appeal threshold is determined by the annual rental amount. In a case involving the eviction of a property with a monthly rental fee of 10,000 TL due to an eviction commitment, the case value will be the annual rental amount, i.e., 120,000 TL, and the court’s decision will be subject to appeal as of 2025.
The trial process varies depending on the complete presentation of evidence, the court in which the trial is held, the number of witnesses and whether the parties follow the case, and generally takes between 6 months and 1.5 years.
CONCLUSION
The lawsuit for eviction of a new owner due to purchase aims to establish a legal balance between the protection of ownership, a special right stipulated by Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, and the protection of tenants. While the regulation aims to prevent abusive practices through notice and timeframe requirements, as well as requirements regarding the sincerity of need, court discretion and Supreme Court precedents stand out as the principles determining the balance in the specific case. To achieve a successful outcome in practice, the parties must meticulously comply with procedural requirements and prepare documents and evidence, taking the burden of proof into account.
MOST WONDERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEW OWNER’S EVICTION CASE DUE TO PURCHASE (NEED)
1-) What is the eviction case of the new owner due to purchase?
After purchasing the property, the new owner may terminate the lease agreement and request eviction in case of real, sincere and compelling need for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ancestors or his legal dependants.
2-) Which law is binding?
Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regulates this case.
3-) What conditions are necessary?
-The status of the person in need (himself, his/her spouse, children, parents or legally responsible persons),
-The need must be real, sincere, continuous and mandatory,
-Written notification must be made,
-Compliance with deadlines.
4-) Is notification mandatory?
Yes, the new owner must provide written notice within one month of purchasing the property. This notice must be served on the tenant. If the notice is not served within one month, the new owner will not be able to file an eviction lawsuit until the lease renewal period. To verify whether the notice has been served, it is crucial to obtain the notification barcode number from the notice sent by the notary and track it down, or to visit the notary to verify the timeframe.
5-) Should the notification be made through a notary?
There’s no legal obligation, but it’s recommended to have it done through a notary public for ease of proof. Notifications made through the PTT E-Telegram system also reach the tenant quickly and provide the new owner with easier proof.
6-) How is the need verified?
The court must determine that the need is genuine and real, and that there is no other alternative. Expert witnesses and discovery may be possible.
7-) For whom can a need be claimed?
It can be used for the new owner, spouse, children, parents or legal dependants.
😎 Which is the competent and authorized court?
Officer: Civil Court of Peace
Authorized: The court where the real estate is located,
10-) What should be the content of the warning letter?
The purchase date and reasons for the need should be clearly written.
11-) Is it possible to rent again after eviction?
The new owner cannot rent the property to anyone else for three years; otherwise, compensation will be charged.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…” |
12-) Can the plaintiff be a company?
The company can only file a lawsuit for its own needs; it cannot be filed for the needs of its partners.
13-) Is it sufficient that the need for the lawsuit is temporary?
Temporary or future needs are not accepted.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS REGARDING THE EVICTION CASE DUE TO THE NEW OWNER’S PURCHASE (NEED)
1-) Supreme Court of Appeals 3rd Civil Chamber 2017/7209 E., 2017/17902 K.:
| “…Although the plaintiff had the option to file a lawsuit based on need after the acquisition, the plaintiff, through a notice, granted the defendant six months from the acquisition date to vacate the leased property. He filed the lawsuit on May 11, 2015, without waiting for the expiration of the given period. According to the content of the notice, the defendant had the right to occupy the leased property until May 21, 2015. However, the court should have dismissed the lawsuit filed before the six-month period granted to the defendant. However, the court found the written judgment erroneous, and therefore, the decision was overturned. |
2-) Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber 2015/7793 E., 2015/10509 K.:
| “…There is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement, dated January 1, 2012, between the previous owner and the tenant. The agreement stipulated an annual rent of 11,000 Turkish Lira, payable annually in advance. The leased property was acquired by the plaintiff on February 18, 2014. The plaintiff, through a notice dated February 20, 2014, and numbered 547, issued by the Notary Public of … 5, stated that he had acquired the property, that the rents should be paid to him, and that he should vacate the property within 15 days due to his personal needs. This notice was served on the defendant on February 27, 2014. When the rents were not paid despite the warnings, the plaintiff … sent a notice dated 22.08.2014 and numbered 11138 to the 3rd Notary Public, stating that the annual rent of 11,000 TL which was due to be paid to the former owner as of 01.01.2014 had not been paid and therefore the rental fee between 18.02.2014 and 31.12.2014, totaling 9,958.99 TL, consisting of 9,524.24 TL rent and 434.75 TL accrued interest, should be paid within 30 days, otherwise the contract would be terminated and an eviction lawsuit would be filed, the lease agreement would not be extended again and the plaintiff should vacate the rented property as of 31.12.2014 and return the keys. This notice was served to the defendant on 01.09.2014. In his petition, the plaintiff stated that he filed the lawsuit due to the defendant’s nonpayment of rent and failure to comply with the terms of the proper notice, as well as his client’s mother’s housing need. According to Article 351/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, to file an eviction lawsuit based on acquisition and need, a notice of purchase must be served within one month of the acquisition date, and the lawsuit must be filed six months after the acquisition date. Although the plaintiff’s written notice dated February 20, 2014, stating that the acquisition was made, was served within one month of the acquisition date, and since the defendant was given a 15-day period from the date of notification to file an eviction, this notice cannot be considered compliant with Article 351/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Even if one considers for a moment that this notice was proper, it appears that the plaintiff, in his default notice dated August 22, 2014, gave the defendant until December 31, 2014, to vacate the leased property. Even if one considers that the lawsuit was filed pursuant to a contract dated January 1, 2012, between the former owner and the defendant, the lawsuit filed on October 23, 2014, is not timely, as the defendant was granted until December 31, 2014, as stated above. While the eviction lawsuit should have been dismissed for this reason, it is incorrect to dismiss the eviction request on the grounds that the need was not genuine. However, the ultimately correct decision should be affirmed with the justification corrected. |
3-) Supreme Court of Appeals Civil Chamber General Assembly 2017/1540 E., 2021/878 K.:
| “…In cases based on a claim of need, for a release to be granted, the need must be proven to be genuine, sincere, and necessary. A temporary need that is not ongoing cannot be considered grounds for release, nor can a need that has not yet arisen or is due for a long period of time be considered grounds for release. The existence of a need at the time the case is filed is not sufficient; this need must persist during the trial. The plaintiff, who was living abroad at the time of the case, purchased real estate due to his need to return home and therefore needed the purchased property, was proven by the witnesses heard during the trial. Furthermore, the document indicating his resignation from the company he worked for in the US on May 31, 2013, which was included in the appeals case file, and the residence transfer document dated May 10, 2013, which was obtained for his permanent return to Türkiye, indicate that his need for housing continued during the trial. |
4-) Supreme Court of Appeals 3rd Civil Chamber 2017/7827 E., 2017/18433 K.:
| According to Article 350/1 of the TCC No. 6098, eviction lawsuits based on a claim of need must be filed at the end of the term for fixed-term contracts, and within one month of the date determined by the deadlines for termination notices in Article 328 of this law for indefinite-term contracts, in accordance with the deadlines for termination notices in Article 328 of this law. Pursuant to Article 353 of the TCC, if the landlord has notified the tenant in writing that they will file a lawsuit before, or at the latest within, the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the lawsuit may be filed until the end of an extended lease year following the notification. The time limit for filing a lawsuit relates to public order and must be considered by the court on its own initiative, even if the defendant does not submit a claim. The lease agreement, dated January 1, 2013, which forms the basis of the judgment, is for one year. Because the leased property is subject to the provisions regarding residential and roofed workplace leases, the lease agreement was renewed pursuant to Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, and the period ended on January 1, 2015, as of the date the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit was filed on January 26, 2015, within one month of the lease agreement’s expiration date. Because the lawsuit was filed on time, the Court should have collected the parties’ evidence and examined the merits. However, the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the lease agreement had become ambiguous and that the lawsuit was not filed on time was contrary to procedure and law, and necessitated reversal. |
5-) Supreme Court of Appeals 3rd Civil Chamber 2018/4179 E., 2018/9099 K.:
| “…The 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, in its decision dated October 4, 2017, and numbered 2017/4717-13324 E/K, ruled, “Article 350/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) stipulates that the acquirer of the leased property may request eviction due to residential or commercial needs for themselves, their spouse, descendants, ancestors, or other persons they are legally obligated to care for. According to the law and the established precedents of the Court of Appeals, a natural person cannot request eviction due to a company’s needs. Since the plaintiff, a natural person, requested eviction based on the needs of the institution of which he is a partner, the court should have dismissed the case. However, the court’s decision to accept the case and evict the defendant from the leased property based on written justification was deemed incorrect and warranted reversal.” |
6-) Supreme Court of Appeals 6th Civil Chamber 2015/6614 E., 2015/9220 K.:
| “…The plaintiff stated that his current residence is remote, insufficient to meet all his needs, and that the rented property is too small for him. In a city with all means of transportation, distance and proximity cannot be considered a factor in determining his needs. The court has not conducted a survey on the superiority of the plaintiffs’ current residence and the subject of the lawsuit. The court should have conducted a comparative survey of the subject of the lawsuit and the current residence to investigate their superiority. It should have focused on the distance of the current residence to the district center and its development status. It should have obtained a report suitable for auditing from an expert on this matter. Since the superiority of the subject of the lawsuit has been determined, the plaintiff should have been asked whether he would offer the defendant tenant the space in the TOKİ housing complex where he currently resides for occupancy. Based on this, a decision should have been made based on the results. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate to render a written judgment without considering these matters. The judgment should have been overturned. |
THE IMPORTANCE OF LAWYER 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.