COURT RULING ON SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN EVICTION CASE FOR LANDLORD
PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING ON SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR EVICTION CASES BY LANDLORDS
This week, I will attempt to explain to my esteemed readers a precedent-setting decision by the Court of Cassation regarding tenancy law, which has become a subject of great curiosity, along with examples.
A highly important precedent-setting decision has emerged from the Court of Cassation that concerns millions of tenants and landlords. While high rent increases have brought landlords and tenants into conflict, courts have become congested with 'eviction' and 'rent determination' lawsuits. The Court of Cassation ruled that if a property owner is living as a tenant in another house, the rented property must be vacated. The High Court stated that in residential eviction cases, the fact that the landlord lives in a rented property is primary evidence of the existence of the need.
The Court of Cassation has issued a precedent-setting ruling regarding rental properties, which has been a topic of debate in recent months. A property owner who moved to the district where they own a rental property after being laid off from their job told their tenant, 'I lost my job, vacate the house.' Upon the tenant's refusal to vacate the house, the plaintiff landlord knocked on the doors of the Magistrate Court, stating that due to being laid off, they had moved from the district where they were working to the district where the subject property is located and were currently living as a tenant in another residence.
The landlord requested a decision for the eviction of the rented house due to their son's housing need. The defendant tenant requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove the claim of need. When the plaintiff appealed the decision, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation intervened. In this precedent-setting decision, the fact that the property owner lives as a tenant in another apartment was considered sufficient evidence. The ruling included the following statements:
"In lawsuits based on the claim of need, it must be proven that the need is real, sincere, and mandatory for an eviction decision to be made. A temporary need that does not show continuity cannot be a ground for eviction, nor can a need that has not yet arisen or is dependent on a long period of time be accepted as a ground for eviction. The existence of the cause of need as of the date the lawsuit is filed is not sufficient; this need must also continue during the proceedings. In the concrete case, there is no dispute regarding the existence of the lease agreement. The lawsuit is based on the emergence of the housing need of the plaintiff's son, and the contract regarding the fact that the person in need resides in a rented property is in the file. In eviction cases based on residential grounds, the fact that the person in need lives in a rented property is the primary evidence of the existence of the need.
It is also understood that the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses heard supports the claim of need. In this case, it is necessary to accept that the need is sincere, real, and mandatory. While the court should have decided to accept the request for eviction due to need, deciding to dismiss it in the manner written is contrary to procedure and the law, and requires reversal."