PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING TENANTS WHO PAY RENT VIA BANK
PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION CONCERNING TENANTS WHO PAY RENT VIA BANK
In this week’s column, I will attempt to explain to you, my esteemed readers, a precedent-setting decision by the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which has become one of the most frequently asked-about topics in rental law, along with concrete examples. The Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has issued a significant ruling that closely concerns those who make rent payments via bank.
"If you are paying your rent via bank, you must be careful. The precedent-setting decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, dated 02.11.2021, numbered 2017/980 E. and 2021/1302 K., states;
“...The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the real estate where the defendant resided as a tenant was purchased by their client on 22.10.2012; that a warning notice was issued to the defendant via the .... Notary Public on 19.11.2012, numbered 21210, requesting that the monthly rent of 450 TL be paid into the client's bank account; that an enforcement proceeding was initiated against the defendant due to the underpayment of rent; that the defendant objected by claiming that they had paid the monthly rent and had no debt; and requested the removal of the objection and the termination of the contract along with the eviction of the defendant from the leased property. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the one-year lease agreement starting on 02.08.2012, which serves as the basis for the enforcement proceeding and the court’s judgment. In the contract, the monthly rent is set at 450 TL, and it was agreed that payments would be made in advance on the second of each month. In the enforcement proceeding with a request for foreclosure and eviction initiated by the plaintiff (creditor) against the defendant (debtor) on 26.03.2013, the plaintiff requested the collection of a total of 576 TL, consisting of 450 TL for the November 2012 rent and 126 TL for the rent shortfalls of 31.50 TL each for December 2012, and January, February, and March 2013. In their timely objection, the defendant claimed that they had paid the monthly rent in accordance with the contract and therefore did not accept the debt, submitting four payment receipts. It is understood from the payment receipts submitted by the defendant that 418.50 TL was paid monthly for the months subject to the proceeding after a bank fee deduction of 31.50 TL. Since the subject of the proceeding is a monetary debt arising from a contract and no contrary provision was stipulated in the contract, the monetary debt regarding the rent is to be paid at the creditor's place of residence at the time of payment; therefore, the place of performance is the creditor's place of residence. In accordance with Article 89 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), rent is a debt that must be delivered and paid; thus, it must either be delivered and paid in person to the lessor, deposited into a bank account provided that the costs are borne by the tenant, or sent via PTT with payment at the residence. In the event that the rent is deposited into the lessor's bank account, the tenant is responsible for the transfer fees deducted by the bank. Payments not made in this manner cannot be accepted as legal payments. For this reason, the court should have ruled for the cancellation of the objection and the eviction of the tenant based on the underpaid rent amounts subject to the proceeding...” it is stated.