T.C. Supreme Court 3.Legal Department E: 2017/3309, K: 2017/16796, K.T.: 30.11.2017
As a result of the trial of the compensation case between the parties by the court, upon appeal of the decision made to dismiss the case from the point of view of duty by the plaintiff’s deputy within the time limit; after the adoption of the appeal petition was decided, the papers in the file were dec and considered necessary:
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the real estate subject to the lawsuit, that the defendants had occupied the real estate unfairly, and requested that the defendants’ unfair interference with the real estate be prevented and evicted from the real estate and compensation for unfair occupation of TL 25,000 be collected.
The defendant … asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that he rented the real estate from the former owner, was not an unfair occupier.
Due to the lease agreement submitted by the defendant, the court decided not to act on the grounds that the court in charge was a magistrate’s court, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy.
4, which regulates the duty of the magistrates’ courts of the HMK No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011.according to Article 1 / a of the Article, all disputes related to receivables arising from a rental relationship, including all disputes, as well as cases filed against these cases, are assigned to the magistrate’s court, including provisions regarding the execution and non-execution evacuation of leased real estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. … Unlike HMUK No. 1086, in this regulation, the place of settlement of disputes arising from the entire rental relationship, such as eviction, receivables, compensation, determination of the title of tenant, without dividing the amount, is shown as a magistrate’s court.
26/1 of HMK No. 6100. according to the article “The judge is bound by the results of the parties’ claims; he cannot decide on more than ten or anything else. Depending on the situation, the claim may decide less than the result.”
The case was opened with a bet that the defendants had already occupied the real estate that was the subject of the dispute; According to the 2/1 of the Law on Civil Procedure No. 6100, the said request was caused by the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 and the settlement of the dispute was made. there is no doubt that the Court of First Instance has a duty in accordance with the article.
In this case, the court should examine the merits of the work, dismiss the case if it is determined that there is a legally valid rental relationship between the parties, otherwise a decision should be made in the direction of intervention and decriminalization, while it is not correct to establish a provision in writing.
CONCLUSION: In accordance with the above-described principles, the decision was made in writing without hitting the facility, the appeals appeals are valid for these reasons, and the decision was adopted in accordance with Article 428 of the HUMK.in accordance with Article 440 of HUMK No. 1086 with the temporary attribution of Article 3 of HMK No. 6100, the application fee received in advance will be refunded to the appellants upon request.according to the article, the decision was unanimously decided on 30.11.2017, with the correction path closed.
