PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION CONCERNING PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS
A PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING LANDLORDS AND TENANTS
This week, I will explain to my valued readers, with examples, a precedent-setting ruling by the Supreme Court General Assembly on Civil Matters regarding a subject that sparks the most curiosity in rental law. The Supreme Court General Assembly has delivered a landmark ruling that closely concerns both tenants and landlords. The General Assembly stated, "If there are criminal cases filed between the tenant and the landlord for various reasons, the rental relationship becomes unbearable, and an eviction order must be issued."
Yet another case has been added to the rental law disputes that we have been encountering very frequently of late.
M.A., who was a tenant in a workplace owned by Z.Y. and operated a haberdashery, wanted to move into another shop owned by the same Z.Y. in the same location after it became vacant. However, the landlord, Z.Y., did not agree to this. It was alleged that M.A. moved into this shop without permission and without notice.
When Z.Y. objected, a dispute arose between the parties. Claiming that he had been subjected to verbal and physical attacks by the tenant M.A. and his wife, Z.Y. applied to the İzmir Konak District Governorate, alleging that the actions of M.A. and his wife constituted "gross misuse of the leased property" under Article 256 of the Code of Obligations (BK) No. 818.
He requested that M.A. be evicted from the property.
HE REQUESTED EVICTION
In the reply petition submitted by M.A.’s lawyer, it was stated that the workplace in question was rented by his client at a monthly rent of 500 TL in accordance with the written lease agreement signed by the parties and that all accrued rent payments had been made to date. It was claimed that the allegations of swearing, insults, and attacks against the plaintiff were completely groundless; on the contrary, it was the plaintiff who had committed the crimes of swearing, insulting, threatening, and slander as defined in Article 267/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 against his client. It was alleged that the landlord had threatened and insulted the client regarding his eviction after some renovations, repairs, and furnishing were carried out by the client on the property, and that he had made an administrative application to the Konak District Governorate under Law No. 3091 with the slanderous claim that his client was occupying the workplace.
M.A.'s lawyer stated that the request was rejected on the grounds that the workplace was being used by his client based on a lease agreement, that a complaint had been filed against the plaintiff for the crime of slander, and that the investigation was ongoing, requesting the dismissal of the case.
In the criminal cases filed by both parties against each other, a public lawsuit was filed against the defendant tenant for insult and simple assault upon the landlord’s complaint. At the end of the trial held in the Criminal Court of Peace, the defendant was acquitted on the grounds that "there was insufficient evidence for conviction and the alleged crime was not proven," and the decision became final following an appeal review. The defendant tenant, who was acquitted, filed a complaint against the landlord for the crime of slander; at the end of the trial held at the İzmir 18th Criminal Court of First Instance, the landlord was sentenced for the crime of slander, and it was decided to "Defer the Announcement of the Verdict," and this decision became final.
THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE
The Magistrate Court decided to dismiss the case, stating that "Although the plaintiff's witness declared in his statement during the preparatory stage and in the criminal proceedings that he had no first-hand knowledge, he made a statement to the contrary in our court, and the witness's final statement was not found sincere; the other two witnesses' statements during the preparatory stage and in the criminal court were contradictory, and the other witnesses had no first-hand knowledge of the insult."
THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE DECISION
The (now closed) 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which gathered to evaluate whether the defendant tenant's actions of insult and simple assault against the landlord took place and whether this made the rental relationship unbearable, reversed the decision, stating: "It is understood from the witness testimonies heard in the criminal file that the defendant tenant engaged in physical and verbal actions against the landlord, used insulting language, and caused moral harm to the landlord. The fact that the defendant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings due to lack of sufficient evidence does not bind the civil judge under Article 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. While the criminal judge evaluates whether the action fits the typical definition of a crime specified in the law and whether the element of intent is realized, the civil judge, even if the action does not constitute a crime, examines with a broader interpretation whether the action is unlawful and whether the contractual relationship between the parties has become unbearable due to the unlawful action. Both the witness testimonies heard in the criminal proceedings and the fact that the defendant tenant continued the hostility by filing a complaint against the landlord for the crime of slander show that the rental relationship between the parties has become unbearable. It is not correct that the case was dismissed in written form without complying with the stated issues, while it should have been accepted by acknowledging that the conditions in Article 316/2 (correctly 316/3) of the Turkish Code of Obligations had been met."
THE MAGISTRATE COURT RESISTED
Following the reversal decision, the Magistrate Court issued a resistance decision, arguing: "In the Supreme Court’s reversal decree, the tenant’s filing a complaint against the landlord for slander was accepted as making the rental agreement unbearable; the tenant’s complaint against the landlord for slander was seen as a violation of the 'duty to show respect' mentioned in the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) No. 6098, which corresponds to the 'necessary duty' in Article 256/1 of the BK. However, the tenant’s exercise of the right to complain, which is a constitutional right, was ignored. It is not correct to impose a legal sanction on a tenant who uses a constitutional right because of that exercise; the landlord caused the crime of slander to occur through his own actions, and it is impossible to allow him to benefit from this situation. Both the tenant and the landlord are obliged to behave respectfully toward each other, and it is not seen as appropriate for the tenant's complaint regarding the crime of slander to have adverse consequences for him."
The resistance decision was appealed within the period by the representative of the plaintiff's heirs.
The Supreme Court General Assembly on Civil Matters stated: "According to the parties' statements and the scope of the file, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for the crimes of insult and simple assault, and as a result of the trial held by the Criminal Court of Peace, the defendant was acquitted of the alleged crimes on the grounds that there was no sufficient and convincing evidence for a conviction. The defendant also filed a complaint against the plaintiff for the crimes of insult and slander, and as a result of the trial held by the Criminal Court of First Instance, it was decided to convict the plaintiff of insult and slander and to defer the announcement of the verdict. In this case, it is understood that the plaintiff and the defendant filed complaints against each other and that trials were held in criminal courts, thus making the rental relationship unbearable for the landlord; therefore, the decision should have been made to accept the case by acknowledging that the conditions in Article 256/2 (TBK Article 316/3) of the BK were met." By saying this, the court reversed the Magistrate Court's resistance decision in favor of the tenant's eviction.