COURT OF CASSATION DECISION ON THE EVICTION DUE TO THE NEW LANDLORD’S ACQUISITION AND NECESSITY
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (“Supreme Court”) with docket number 2025/2624 and decision number 2025/3931 (in Turkish, “Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi’nin E:2025/2624, K:2025/3931 Sayılı Kararı, the “Decision”) has recently rendered an important ruling regarding the application of the Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (the “Law No. 6098” or “TCO”), as published in the Official Gazette numbered 33113 and dated 20 December 2025.
The case concerned an eviction action filed by a new property owner based on necessity following the acquisition of a leased immovable. The 1st Civil Court of Peace of Manavgat (“Civil Court of Peace”) established that the defendants were the tenants of the former landlord and that the plaintiff acquired the property on 9 December 2022, thereby becoming a party to the existing lease agreement, in line with the article 310 of the TCO.
The Civil Court of Peace further determined that the plaintiff sent a written notice to the tenants within one month following the acquisition, stating the need to use the property for residential purposes and the intention not to renew the lease. Said notice was served to the defendants on 13 January 2023, and the eviction lawsuit was filed on 19 July 2023, which the court of first instance considered to be within the statutory time limits.
Following the first-instance decision, the Ministry of Justice filed an appeal in the interest of the law (in Turkish “kanun yararına temyiz”), arguing that the Civil Court of Peace should have examined ex officiowhether the statutory notification period had been duly complied with. It was asserted that the notice had not been served to the tenants within one month from the date of acquisition of the leased property and that, consequently, the eviction action based on Article 351/1 had not been validly initiated within the mandatory time frame. Accordingly, it was claimed that the eviction ruling was contrary to both procedural rules and substantive law.
Pursuant to Article 351 of Law No. 6098; a person who acquires a residential or commercial property may file an eviction lawsuit based on necessity either (i) six months after the date of acquisition, provided that the tenant is notified in writing starting from the date of acquisition of the property, or (ii) within one month from the end of the existing lease term.
Although the eviction action is not required to be filed immediately upon the lapse of the six-month period and may be initiated until the end of the lease term, compliance with the notification requirement within one month of acquisition is mandatory and cannot be remedied subsequently. The right to choose between the available two procedural options rests with the new landlord. Importantly, compliance with the statutory time limits is a matter of public order and must be examined by the court ex officio, irrespective of whether the tenant raises an objection.
Upon its examination, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff acquired the property on 9 December 2022, that the written notification was drawn on 28 December 2022 and was served to the defendants on 13 January 2023, and that the eviction action was filed on 19 July 2023. The Court emphasized that, under Article 351/1 of the Law No. 6098, the written notice should have been served no later than 9 January 2023 (i.e. within one month following the date of acquisition of the leased property). As this requirement was not fulfilled, the eviction lawsuit should have been dismissed ex officio.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the eviction decision rendered by the Civil Court of Peace was contrary to procedure and law, accepted the Ministry of Justice’s appeal in the interest of the law, and reversed the first-instance decision.
What is legally decisive here is that the notice must be served to the tenant(s) within one month from the date of acquisition. Accordingly, dispatch/drawing of the notice following date of acquisition does not satisfy the requirement if the said notice is served after the expiry of the one-month period.
In this respect, it would also be useful to briefly discuss the effect of the annotation of a lease agreement to the land registry concerning the application of Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Pursuant to Article 312 of the Law No.6098, it may be agreed in leases of immovable property, that the tenant’s leasehold right be annotated to the land registry. Accordingly, such an annotation prevents the new landlord from filing an eviction lawsuit claiming necessity to the property for its own needs, for the duration of the lease agreement/annotation period, because legally, it is accepted that the new landlord acquired the property with the acknowledgment of the lease agreement and therefore the new landlord shall not be entitled to file an eviction procedure based on necessity, until the elapse of the lease agreement/annotation term.
In the light of the above and especially considering possible change of ownership of the leased properties, in order to secure long term leases and investments, annotation of the lease agreements to land registry should be considered.
Our Law Firm remains at your disposal for any further clarifications you may need.
Copyright © 2025 Cailliau&Colakel Attorney Partnership, All rights reserved.