6. Civil Department 2013/14078 Base , 2014/6778 Decision
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Bursa 4. Court of First Instance Law
DATE : 27/06/2013
NUMBER : 2010/37-2013/621
The decision on the compensation case with the above date and number written from the local court was appealed by the defendant within the time limit, but all the papers in the file were read and discussed and considered as necessary.
The case relates to the claim for compensation for wrongful termination. The court decided to partially accept the case, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
In the petition of the acting plaintiff, the subject of the case is excluded from the case of the immovable F..K..a that he was hired, on the date of 22/10/1997 is transferred to the client, if the lease agreement the lease agreement between the parties dated 01.01.2004 and latest renewed each year that the defendant’s explanation for the dissolution of the contract without declaring immovable and immovable administrative 3091 wants to be evacuated in accordance with the law for the evacuation process started when you had to evacuate immovable against the force of the client, stating that he suffered damage due to unfair release, he requested that a decision be made to collect TL 10,000 compensation from the defendant. In his response petition, the acting defendant defended the rejection of the case by stating that the defendant evicted the immovable property of his own free will after the notification of the council’s decision. According to the court, the lease agreement was terminated unjustly by the defendant, the plaintiff’s right to seek compensation arose, and the property damage suffered by the defendant was determined in accordance with Article 264/2 of the Criminal Code. in accordance with it,it was stated that the monthly rent of TL 2,000 that it had paid would be TL 12,000.00, which is the amount of TL 6 months, and it was decided to collect TL 10,000 from the defendant based on the claimant’s request and collect TL 10,000 compensation.
There are no disputes between the parties regarding the lease agreement dated 01.04.2004 and dec a one-year period. 75 Of the Law No. 2886, according to which the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement by the decision of the council, upon the fact that the plaintiff did not evict the tenant in accordance with this decision. according to the article, it is understood that he made a request for processing, upon this notification, the plaintiff evicted the immovable property on 07.02.2005 and handed it over. As of the date of establishment of the transaction by the court, it has been accepted that there is no possibility to apply the Law No. 2886 on real estate belonging to the municipality, and the termination is not based on the justified reason.
During the continuation of the lease agreement for a certain period of time, due to important reasons arising from the TBK. 331 (BK. 264.) in order to terminate the contract in accordance with the Article, the lease relationship becomes unbearable for important reasons, TBK. 330,368 (UK. 262 and 285), it is necessary to file a declaration of termination in accordance with the periods described in Articles 262 and 285, and TBK in the case.nun 331. there is no possibility of applying the substance.
In accordance with the principle of adherence to the agreement, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions in the agreement they have concluded, and, as a rule, its termination is not possible before the term of the agreement. Contrary
in this case, the obligation arises for the party that terminated the contract to leave without a justified reason. In this context, the termination of the contract unilaterally by the lessor, the failure to deliver the workplace subject to the contract to the tenant is a violation of the contract. In this context, the defendant is responsible for compensation. The provisions on liability for tort in accordance with Article 114/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code will also apply in cases of violation of the contract by comparison. 52 Of the Turkish Commercial Code, which regulates the deduction of compensation for liability arising from the defendant’s violation of the lease agreement.the article will find its application area. In this context, the plaintiff tenant must also make the necessary effort to find a new workplace where he can operate as a tenant after the termination. As a result, it is necessary to determine the period during which the plaintiff can re-rent another workplace in which he can carry out his activity as a tenant under the same conditions and conditions, and the defendant lessor must also be held responsible for the loss of earnings for this period. The court has not made a determination and evaluation of the period at which the plaintiff can re-rent a new workplace in which he can carry out his activities as a tenant under similar conditions after the termination. Due to unfair termination, the amount of compensation that the plaintiff may request from the defendant lessee must be determined in accordance with the principles and principles described above. After this point has been fulfilled, a decision on the request should be made by the court, but it is not correct to make a decision in writing with incomplete examination.
The provision must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: HMK No. 6100 with the acceptance of appeals for the reasons described above.or temporary 3, added by Law No. 6217.in accordance with the provision of the article, HUMK.of 428.a unanimous decision was made on 26/05/2014 on the VIOLATION of the provision in accordance with the article and the return of the advance appeal fee to the appellant upon request.