REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
SUPREME COURT
- LAW OFFICE
Article No:2015/7088 Decision No:2015/9126 K. Date:27.10.2015
COURT: Kashan Magistrates Court
DATE: 27/01/2015
NUMBER: 2014/612-2015/40
The decision regarding the eviction and receivable (rental receivable) lawsuit, with the date and number written above, given by the local court, was appealed by the plaintiff in due time, and all the papers in the file were read and discussed and considered.
The case is related to the request for eviction and rent receivables due to default. Since the immovable was evacuated, the court decided that there was no need to decide on the evacuation, the case was decided to be accepted in terms of the demand for rent receivable.
In Article 17 of the Law on Fees, a fee must be charged over one year’s rent in evacuation cases, in Article 28, one-fourth of the required fee will be paid in advance and the remainder will be paid within two months after the decision is made. In Article 30, it is stipulated that if it is understood that the value determined during the trial is more than the value specified in the lawsuit petition, the trial will continue only for that session, and the lawsuit cannot be continued until the deficient value is completed until the advance decision and verdict fee is completed. The lawsuit is about the collection of rent receivables and the request for eviction and is subject to a relative fee. In terms of the total amount of receivables requested to be collected in the case and the eviction, a relative decision and verdict fee must be taken over the one-year rental fee. While filing the lawsuit, a cash fee was paid over the amount of the receivable to be collected, but no fee was paid in terms of the eviction lawsuit according to the annual rental price, and the lack of fees was not replenished during the trial. It is against the procedure and the law to examine the merits of the work by continuing the trial with the missing fee.
The judgment must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the appeal objections for the reasons explained above, taking into account the provision of the provisional article 3 added to the HMK No. 6100 with the Law No. 6217, in accordance with the Article 428 of the HUMK, without examining the other aspects of the verdict, the appeal fee paid in advance is returned to the appellant 27/10/ It was unanimously decided in 2015.
