PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT: TENANTS SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR WEAR AND TEAR IN THE HOME
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT: TENANTS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WEAR AND TEAR
This week, I will attempt to explain to my esteemed readers a precedent-setting decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals, which has become one of the most intriguing cases in rental law, along with examples. The Supreme Court of Appeals has signed off on a decision that closely concerns millions of tenants. The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which issued the ruling affecting millions of tenants, held that a tenant cannot be held responsible for the wear and deterioration occurring from the use of the property.
A citizen who rented out their property as a workplace applied to the Civil Court of Peace, arguing that the tenant had made unauthorized modifications to the project and that all maintenance, operation, and repair costs belonged to the tenant.
The plaintiff property owner claimed that they had lease agreements with the defendant, that the tenant had made many modifications to the workplace contrary to the project, and that even though the lease agreement stated that all maintenance, operation, repair, and damage issues in the leased property would be covered by the tenant, the tenant did not address the damages.
Stating that the amount of damage and the repair period were determined through the court, that follow-up proceedings were initiated for the collection of the determined damage cost and the 4-month repair period rent, and that the defendant had unfairly objected to the proceedings, they requested the cancellation of the objection.
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court found the objection justified
The defendant tenant, testifying in court, stated that as a result of an examination conducted by lecturers from a technical university, a report was issued indicating that the building needed to be reinforced or rebuilt.
Stating that no unauthorized manufacturing or demolitions contrary to the project were carried out in the building without the plaintiff's knowledge, that necessary maintenance and renovations were performed, and that the building in question was compulsorily vacated due to earthquake risk and needed to be demolished and rebuilt, they requested the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to accept the case, cancel the defendant's objection to the enforcement file, and continue the proceedings; it ruled that since the claim required a trial, there was no room for awarding compensation for bad-faith execution in favor of the plaintiff.
Both the tenant and the property owner appealed the decision. The 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court found the defendant's objection regarding "misuse compensation" justified. The Chamber overturned the court's decision, ruling that the tenant is not responsible for wear and deterioration resulting from use in accordance with the contract, but is responsible for loss and damage resulting from misuse. In the retrial, the court ruled for a partial acceptance of the case. When the defendant appealed the decision, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court intervened this time.
"They are responsible for loss and damage resulting from misuse"
The Supreme Court decision reminded that deterioration occurred in the property for 14 years due to normal use. The decision included the following statements: "It is understood that the result was reached by stating that the 14-year depreciation rate would be 17 percent as a result of the calculation made. A tenant is not responsible for the wear and deterioration that occurs due to normal use in accordance with the contract, but is exclusively responsible for the loss and damage caused by misuse.
Considering the duration and purpose of the defendant's use of the leased property, it is certain that there will be wear and tear resulting from normal use. Therefore, when determining the loss and damage caused by misuse through an expert report to be obtained by the court, each lease agreement and the type and condition of the leased property must be evaluated separately, and the usage period of each leased property must be calculated separately according to each lease agreement, and the depreciation share proportional to the usage period must be calculated and deducted from the claim.
The court should have determined the actual damage in the manner stated and reached a decision accordingly; instead, it was not deemed correct to base the decision on an expert report that made an erroneous calculation by taking the annual average of the lease agreements, and this required a reversal. It was decided unanimously to overturn the court's ruling."