6. Law Office 2016/3380 E., 2016/3343 K. "Case Law
Text"
COURT: Civil Court of Peace
The decision of the local court on the above date and number written on the case of eviction has been appealed by the plaintiff in due time, all the papers in the file have been read and duly discussed and considered.
The case is about the request for the evacuation of the rented person due to the need for housing. The court has decided to dismiss the case and the decision has been appealed by the plaintiff's attorney.
In the petition of the plaintiff's attorney: the defendant is a tenant with a one-year lease contract starting from 1.11.2011, the son of his client. . Stating that he is a 28-year-old single, is preparing for marriage, that the house where he still lives with his father and mother is narrow, and that he is a minor in need and wants to go to a separate house, and according to the Supreme Court case law, the person who has proven his age has the legal right to acquire a separate residence. On the other hand, the defendant's attorney defended the rejection of the case, stating that the need was not sincere and that his main purpose was to increase the rent.
No. 6098 TBK.'s 350/1. In the lawsuits to be filed based on the claim of need, as a rule, the right of action belongs to the lessor. However, the case law has been accepted that the owner, who is not in the position of a lessor, can also file these cases. If the leased is the subject of shared ownership, the majority of the shareholders and stakeholders must be ensured, and if it is the subject of ownership in cooperation, all partners must participate in the case. These conditions can be fulfilled by filing a lawsuit together, or by obtaining the approval of other stakeholders after a lawsuit filed by a stakeholder. If it is not possible to ensure that the partners participate in the case under the ownership of Elbirliği, a representative is appointed to the estate of the inheritor and the lawsuit is carried out before the representative. These issues related to the right to litigation should be taken into consideration automatically by the court.
The fact that an evacuation action can be filed for the needs of people is limited in Article 350 of the TPC. According to the provision of the aforementioned article, the owner, who is not a lessor or lessor, can only file a lawsuit for the housing (or workplace) need of himself, his wife's descendants and descendants, or other dependents as per the law.
In cases based on claims of need, it must be proven that the need is real, sincere and necessary in order to decide on release. A temporary need that is not continuous cannot be made as a reason for evacuation, and a need that has not yet been born or whose realization depends on a long time cannot be considered as a reason for evacuation. The existence of the reason of need at the date of filing of the case is not sufficient, and this need should continue during the trial.
As for our event; There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement dated 1.11.2011 and for one year. The plaintiff's counsel client's son. . Stating that he was 28 years old and was preparing for marriage, he was still living with his father and mother, that he was of age and wanted to go to a separate house, he requested the evacuation of the rented person with this lawsuit. According to the article HUMK26, the judge is bound by the results of the request and cannot decide more than ten or anything else. In the petition of the lawsuit, the plaintiff's attorney stated that the needy was preparing for marriage and stated that the needy, who was of age, wanted to move to a separate house, and the reason for release was not based on the marriage preparation of the adult in need,
The plaintiff's witness, who was heard, made a statement confirming his claim of need. The defendant witness made a statement based on sensation. On the other hand, since it is the legal right of the lessor and the landlord to request a rental increase in accordance with the current conditions, it is not possible to interpret this situation against you. An adult cannot be forced to live with their family, even if they are single. In this case, the desire of the adult needy to sit separately, even if single, should be met as usual, and the claim of need should be accepted as proven. Since the claim of need was proven to be true and sincere, the decision to release should be made, but the decision to dismiss the case with written justification was not correct, so the provision had to be quashed.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the appeal objections for the reasons explained above, to the reversal of the provision pursuant to Article 428 of the HUMK by considering the provisional article 3 added by the Law No. it was decided unanimously.