RENT RECEIVABLES

T.C.
SUPREME

3. law office
   MAINLY NO: 2018/1628
   DECISION NO: 2018/2674
   DATE OF DECISION: 19.3.2018

RENT RECEIVABLE – THE RENT INCREASE RATE IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT – ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH A RENT INCREASE

6098/m.346

ABSTRACT: When the lease agreement between the parties is examined, the 6th part of the agreement is deciphered. in the article “The lessee already accepts and undertakes to increase the fair value of the rent by % at the end of the contract.” it is understood that the arrangement takes place. Since the increase rate is not specified in the provision in question, this increase requirement is not valid because it is not specific and specific. When the follow-up file contained in the file is examined, enforcement proceedings have been made over the monthly rental price of 440 TL, but since the price set as ”400 TL” per month in the rental agreement cannot be requested in increments of ”440 TL” per month, it is contrary to the rules, procedures and laws without observing this aspect by the court and required to be overturned.

CASE: As a result of the trial of the receivable case between the parties by the court, upon the appeal of the decision made for the acceptance of the case by the defendant’s deputy within the period; after the decision was made dec accept the appeal petition, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:

decision

The plaintiff claims that the real estate located at the relevant address was rented by the defendant with a lease agreement dated 30 dec07/2008 signed between them and the defendant, the defendant did not pay the rental fees from 30/07/2009 to 30/05/2010, Ankara 18 for the collection of unpaid rental fees. Claiming that the Enforcement Directorate had started legal proceedings in its file No. 2011/1648, the defendant objected to the proceedings, requested and sued the defendant to decide on its collection with an unpaid rent of TL 4,400.00 and legal interest to be processed gradually per month.

Respondent , B. of the lease agreement.K.the ex-wife of R.Y. arguing that it was clearly arranged between the defendant and the defendant, that the Ramazan Mane was the party to the contract, that his signature was obtained even though he was not the tenant and the guarantor, he asked that the case be decided primarily from the point of view of hostility, otherwise it would be rejected on the basis of decency.

The court decided to collect TL 4,400.00 from the defendant together with the legal interest from the date of the case upon the acceptance of the case, and the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.

1-)According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the legal requirement, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, other appeals of the defendant’s attorney must be rejected.

2-)In a concrete case; When the lease agreement dated 30.07.2008, which was concluded between the parties, is examined, the 6th part of the agreement is deciphered. in the article “The lessee already accepts and undertakes to increase the fair value of the rent by % at the end of the contract.” it is understood that the arrangement takes place. Since the increase rate is not specified in the provision in question, this increase requirement is not valid because it is not specific and specific. Ankara, which is included in the scope of the file, 18. When the follow-up file No. 2011/1648 of the Enforcement Directorate was reviewed, enforcement proceedings were conducted at a monthly rental cost of TL 440, but since it is not possible to request an incremental monthly ”TL 400” increase in the rental agreement, it is contrary to the rules, procedures and laws without observing this direction by the court and required to be overturned.

CONCLUSION: The rejection of other appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the reasons described above for the reasons described in the first paragraph shall be ruled on for the reasons described in the second paragraph.nun 428. according to article 440 of the HUMK No. 1086 with the Temporary reference to Article 3 of the HMK No. 6100, to the DETERIORATION of the defendant’s benefit, to the refund of the appeal fee received in advance to the appellant if requested. according to the article, the decision was made unanimously on 19.03.2018, with the correction path closed.