IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING REGARDING RENT INCREASE LAWSUITS
IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT RULING ON RENT INCREASE LAWSUITS
In this week's article, I will explain to you, my dear readers, an important precedent-setting decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals that has become one of the most curious topics in tenancy law, along with examples.
A very important precedent-setting decision has emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeals that concerns millions of tenants and landlords. While debates continue regarding landlords demanding exorbitant figures from tenants by citing the cost of living as a justification, an important decision has been issued by the Supreme Court Civil Chambers Assembly. The High Court ruled that rights concerning excess amounts cannot be reserved in rent determination lawsuits and that an amendment request cannot be made regarding such reserved rights.
When the landlord and the tenant could not reach an agreement, the landlord chose the path of litigation, and the rent dispute was brought to court. The landlord, who filed a lawsuit in the Magistrate Court, requested a re-determination of the rent amount. The judge of the Magistrate Court, having heard both the tenant and the landlord during the hearing, decided to partially accept the lawsuit. The defendant tenant appealed the partial acceptance decision rendered by the local court. The Supreme Court of Appeals examined this decision by the local court and ruled for its reversal. The case file was sent back to the Magistrate Court by the relevant legal chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The Magistrate Court insisted on its initial decision. As the defendant tenant appealed the resistance decision of the Magistrate Court once again, the file was sent to the Supreme Court Civil Chambers Assembly.
In the decision, which points out that the ruling in rent determination lawsuits pertains to the determination of what the rent for a specific lease year will be, it was reiterated that this determination must be clear, precise, and complete. It was stated that the most striking feature of rent determination lawsuits is that they are related to public order, and it has been accepted in judicial practice that the parties cannot determine the methods related to this.
"RIGHTS CONCERNING EXCESS AMOUNTS CANNOT BE RESERVED IN DETERMINATION LAWSUITS"
The following statements were included in the precedent-setting decision:
"In these lawsuits, the judge is obliged to follow the path of rent determination in accordance with the methods specified by law, unification of case law decisions, and Supreme Court precedents. As for the concrete case, a 5-year contract was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is understood that according to Article 3 of the lease agreement, the rent was determined as 4,500 TL for the first year, it was increased at the rate of (PPI+CPI)/2 in subsequent years, and that the last paragraph of Article 3 of the contract stipulates that if the parties cannot reach a consensus on the rent increase to be made at the end of the first three years, the rent increase will be determined by an expert. However, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant made a payment of 5,693 TL for the 3rd year without a mutual consensus on the rent, and requested that the monthly rent of the property be determined as 8,000 TL. With an amendment petition, the plaintiff stated that they filed the lawsuit based on a gross rent of 8,000 TL and requested that the rent be determined as 9,200 TL gross.
As previously mentioned, rent determination lawsuits are unique and are of a nature close to decisions rendered at the end of constructive lawsuits. In these lawsuits, only the rent valid for the relevant rental period is requested, and a rent determination lawsuit has a limited scope. As a result of the lawsuit, the judge determines the rent to be applied for a one-year period going forward, and the rent stated in the lease agreement is replaced by the judge's decision. Due to this nature of the lawsuit, the request for rent determination cannot be divided, and the rent must be requested by the plaintiff at once, clearly and unequivocally. In other words, in rent determination lawsuits, rights concerning excess amounts cannot be reserved, and an amendment request cannot be made regarding a reserved right. On the other hand, since the request for rent determination pertains to the period specified in the petition, increasing the amount through an amendment would mean making a request covering a later period, which is contrary to the nature of rent determination lawsuits. Under these circumstances, while it was necessary to comply with the Special Chamber's reversal decision adopted by the Civil Chambers Assembly, insisting on the previous decision is contrary to procedure and law. It was unanimously ruled that the resistance decision be reversed."