Akinci Law Office is an international law firm, based in Istanbul Turkey, committed to providing high-quality legal service both in international and domestic practices. We provide specialized legal services to prominent local firms as well as to well-known corporations around the world.
Law No. 6098 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is related to arrangements in which the landlord terminates a tenancy agreement for housing and or a place of business. Even where the tenancy term is fixed, a tenancy contract shall not end automatically when the stipulated term in the contract is over. If the tenant wishes to terminate the contract, he or she can do so subject to the submission of a notice of termination 15 days prior to the date of desired termination; or for contracts with indefinite duration, pursuant to legal conditions for termination notices. The landlord, on the other hand, can unilaterally terminate a tenancy contract that has indefinite duration 10 years from the effective date; and a contract that has a fixed duration, 10 years from the end of the extension period, subject to relevant procedures as provided by the law.
Even though the landlord is only given the right to terminate after a 10-year period, under certain circumstances, he or she can demand the eviction of the tenant.
Grounds for eviction upon the request of the landlord are provided under Articles 350-352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. These grounds are:
Need for housing
Need for place of business
Reconstruction or redevelopment
Needs of a new landlord
Eviction can be demanded on grounds of a need for housing or for place of business for the landlord him/herself, the landlord’s spouse, kinship or anyone to which he/she is a legal guardian. To demand an eviction on these grounds, the Court of Cassation requires the need in question to be real and genuine. According to the Court’s practice, such grounds are considered real and genuine where, for example; the landlord also lives under a tenancy agreement, he/she lives with others, wants to expand his/her business, or there are new necessities that emerge. On the other hand, in situations where there is an emergence of foreseeable needs or an intention to operate a secondary business, the Court does not consider the grounds for eviction to be real and genuine. Moreover, even when seemingly real and genuine, situations where the landlord owns other real estate, where the property in question is not fit for the execution of the relevant matter, or where the property is not in urgent need of restoration, often result in the refusal of a demand for eviction.
An action for eviction on the grounds of a need for housing/place of business and of a reconstruction/redevelopment has to be brought within one month from, for tenancy contracts with fixed duration, the end date of the contract; and for contracts without a fixed duration, from the date of termination or in accordance with terms for a notice of termination. Furthermore, if the landlord informs the tenant that an action will be brought with a written notice, the period of limitation to bring an action can be extended for one tenancy year.
A new landlord, on the other hand, has to bring an action for eviction within six months from the date of acquisition, subject to the requirement that he/she informs the tenant with a written notice within one month from the acquisition. The person that acquires the property can also use his/her right to terminate a tenancy contract on grounds of necessity in order to bring a claim within one month from the date of termination of the contract. Therefore, if the tenancy contract is scheduled to end before the expiration of the six-months post-acquisition, the new landlord can base his/her claim on this provision and bring an action prior to the end of this period.
In the case of the eviction of the property through an action on the grounds of necessity or of reconstruction/redevelopment, the property cannot be rented to anyone other than the former tenant before the end of three years. The only exception would be if there is a valid reason to do so. Even though what constitutes a “valid reason” is not defined, it is widely accepted that the term should be interpreted broader than only for grounds of force majeure. Thus, if the needs that are used as grounds for eviction subside later on, this will be accepted as valid and breach of the rule against re-leasing will not be brought up again. If there is in fact a breach of the rule against re-leasing, the landlord has to compensate his/her former tenant with an amount no less than one year’s rent paid within the last year of the former tenancy.
 Supreme Court Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2012/6-388 E., 2012/560 K., 12.02.2012 decision T.
 İNCEOĞLU, Mehmet Murat, Kira Hukuku – Cilt II, 1st Edition, 2014, s. 536-537