Due to economic fluctuations in Turkey in the recent years, landlords have been seeking to increase rent prices and tenants have not responded favorably to these requests which eventually lead to an increase in disputes over eviction. Particularly in residential and commercial property leases, due to the unique and stringent conditions imposed by the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6698 ("the Code") on the termination of lease agreements and the eviction of tenants, landlords frequently resort to letters of commitment for evictions in practice.
Pursuant to the Code, if the tenant fails to vacate the premises by the determined date despite having undertaken to do so in the writing of the letter of commitment, the landlord has the right to terminate the lease agreement by initiating enforcement proceedings or filing a lawsuit within a one month period starting from the specified date. For the landlord to be able to take this course of action, there must be a valid letter of commitment signed by the tenant. For an eviction commitment to be considered valid, the following conditions must be met: (i) the commitment must be in writing, (ii) the commitment must be prepared following the handover of the leased property, and (iii) the eviction date must be specified in the commitment letter.
Essentially, this provision in the Code, which was codified in order to prevent difficulties in evicting the leased property, is observed to be generally used by landlords as a condition for the lease agreement. Within this regard, it is observed that landlords request from tenants to prepare a commitment letter with the section for the eviction date left blank before entering into a lease agreement and that they prefer not to establish a lease relationship unless such a commitment letter is present. Therefore, currently, generally there are discussions regarding the defect in the will of tenants whilst entering into a lease agreement.
The Approach of the Court of Cassation
It is understood that the Court of Cassation's (the "CoC") evaluations regarding this situation in practice are related to the burden of proof. The CoC, has ruled that if tenants claim that the commitment letter for eviction was drawn up before the premises were handed over and/or that the eviction date was left blank when the commitment letter was signed, the tenants are required to prove these facts with another document of equal evidentiary capacity.
In addition to this established precedence, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the CoC, in its decision dated February 21, 2023, addressed the issue of blank signature. In the case concerning the cancellation of the objection, the first-instance court ruled that the commitment letter for eviction was valid because the defendant did not object to the signature and that the defendant failed to prove with written evidence that the date of the eviction and the lease agreement were the same and thereby ordered the tenant's eviction from the premises. The Regional Court of Appeal adopted the same perspective and rejected the appeal request, ruling that if the tenant signs a blank sheet of paper without writing the date, it can be presumed that the tenant has now accepted how and in what manner the landlord will fill in the blank sections, and that even if there is no date of issuance, the commitment letter is still valid since it is clear from the phrase "while I am residing as a tenant," that the commitment letter was drawn up after the lease agreement. The 3rd Civil Chamber of the CoC upheld the regional court's decision by referring to a 2008 decision of the General Assembly of the CoC.
Therefore, the approach adopted by landlords against tenants in practice has gained strength through the CoC's decisions that place the burden of proof on the tenant.
Doctrinal Views on the Issue of Proof
Within the scholars, there are differing opinions from those of the CoC regarding the issue of burden of proof.
According to one view in the doctrine, the invalidity of a commitment letter where the eviction date is left blank should be available for verification through various means of evidence including indications. For example if the date in the commitment letter is written in different pens or by a different person, this should be considered as an indication that the date was left blank and should lead to the consideration that the commitment letter is invalid. However, in a decision dated 2011, the CoC determined that; the fact that the eviction and issuance dates were written in different pens does not affect the validity of the commitment, and it should be accepted that the landlord was granted the authority to fill in the blank spaces after the signature of the letter.
According to another view in the doctrine, the tenant should be able to prove the fact that the eviction commitment letter was not issued freely for example that it was issued before the handover of the leased property, with any evidence without it being subject to the requirement of proof by deed. The basis of this opinion is that claims of defects of intent in legal transactions are considered one of the exceptions to the requirement of proof by deed under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Actions That Can Be Taken in Practice
It has been observed that the difficulties in practice are particularly concentrated in the area of burden of proof. In this context, if the eviction commitment is prepared in the presence of a notary public this would facilitate the proof of claims that the eviction commitment letter was prepared before the date of handover of the leased property and/or that the eviction date was left blank when the letter was signed.
For eviction commitment letters that are not executed before a notary but are drawn up in simple written form, it may also be considered to challenge the validity of the eviction commitment by serving a formal notice to the landlord through a notary following the signing of the commitment.
In addition to the above-mentioned, since requesting tenants to prepare an eviction commitment letter with a blank eviction date prior to the handover of the leased property would impair the tenant's will, the exercise of the right of cancellation provided for in Article 39 of the Code may be considered. In this regard, the tenants may claim that they are no longer bound by the contract and terminate their obligation under the eviction commitment letter within one year from the moment the effect of the circumstance impairing their intent ceases. Indeed, in decisions on the burden of proof, it can be observed that the court also take into account whether if the tenant filed an action for cancellation pursuant to this provision. It is explained through both the views of the doctrine and in current court decisions, that the right of cancellation provided for in the Code is not subject to any formality, and that the unilateral declaration of intent to cancel results in the desired effect upon reaching the other party, and that there is no need to file a cancellation lawsuit. Therefore, the right of cancellation may be evaluated to be exercised within the one-year statute of limitations by making a declaration of intent, raising a defense, or filing a lawsuit against the other party.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
