6th Civil Chamber 2013/14078 E. , 2014/6778 K.
“Justice Text”
COURT: Bursa 4th Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 27/06/2013
NUMBER: 2010/37-2013/621
The decision of the local court regarding the compensation case, whose date and number is written above, has been appealed by the defendant in due time, and all the papers in the file have been read and discussed and considered.
The case concerns the claim for compensation for wrongful termination. The court decided to accept the case partially, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
In the lawsuit petition, the attorney of the plaintiff stated that the immovable subject to the lawsuit was leased to the F..K.a. out of action, transferred to his client on 22/10/1997, the rental agreement was renewed every year and the lease agreement dated 01.01.2004 was last drawn up between the parties, and the defendant terminated the agreement without giving any reason. He stated that he wanted the immovable to be evacuated by declaring that he wanted the immovable to be evacuated and that he started the proceedings for the evacuation of the immovable by administrative means in accordance with the Law no. 3091, that his client had to evacuate the immovable in the face of this compulsion, and that he had suffered damage due to unjust eviction and demanded that the defendant be paid 10,000 TL indemnity. In his reply petition, the attorney of the defendant defended the rejection of the case by declaring that the defendant evacuated the immovable voluntarily after the notification of the decision of the council. The court has determined that the rental agreement has been terminated unjustly by the defendant, the plaintiff’s right to claim compensation arises, and the material damage he has suffered is under Article 264/2 of the BK. In accordance with the request of the plaintiff, it was decided to collect the compensation of 10.000 TL from the defendant, stating that the monthly rent of 2.000 TL, which was paid in accordance with the law, would be 12.000.00 TL, which is the 6-month amount.
There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement with the starting date of 01.04.2004 and a one-year term. It is understood that the defendant decided not to renew the lease agreement with the decision of the council, and upon the plaintiff’s failure to vacate the leased property in line with this decision, he requested action in accordance with Article 75 of the Law No. 2886, and upon this notification, the plaintiff evacuated and delivered the immovable property on 07.02.2005. It has been accepted by the court that as of the date of establishment of the transaction, it is not possible to apply the Law No. 2886 on the immovables belonging to the municipality, and the termination was not based on a just cause.
During the continuation of the rental agreement made for a certain period, due to important reasons, TCO. In order to terminate the contract pursuant to article 331 (BK. 264.), the rental relationship becomes unbearable due to important reasons, TCO. A declaration of termination must be made in accordance with the periods described in Articles 330,368 (BK. 262 and 285), and Article 331 of the TCO is not applicable in the case.
In accordance with the principle of commitment to the contract, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, and as a rule, it is not possible to terminate the contract before its term. Opposite
In this case, the party who terminates the contract without just cause shall be liable for reparation. The unilateral termination of the contract by the lessor and failure to deliver the workplace subject to the contract to the lessee is a breach of the contract in this context. In this context, the defendant has a liability for compensation. Pursuant to Article 114/2 of the TCO, the provisions regarding tortious act liability will also be applied in cases of breach of contract by analogy. For this reason, Article 52 of the TCO, which regulates the reduction of compensation for liability arising from the defendant’s violation of the lease agreement, will find application. In this context, the plaintiff tenant has to make the necessary effort to find a new workplace where he can carry out his activities as a tenant following the termination. As a result of this, the period in which the claimant can re-lease another workplace in which he can operate as a tenant under the same conditions and conditions must be determined, and the defendant lessor must be held responsible for the loss of earnings for this period. The court has not determined and evaluated how long the plaintiff can re-lease a new workplace in which he can operate as a tenant under similar conditions following the termination. Depending on the unjust termination, the compensation amount that the plaintiff may request from the defendant lessor must be determined in accordance with the principles and principles explained above. After this matter is fulfilled, it is not correct to give a written verdict with an incomplete examination, while a decision should be made by the court about the request.
The judgment must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the appeal objections for the reasons explained above, the provision of the provision of the provisional article 3 added to the HMK No. 6100 with the Law No. 6217 was taken into account, the verdict was overturned pursuant to the 428th article of the CUD, the appeal fee paid in advance was returned to the appellant, on 26/05/2014. it was decided unanimously.
