Eviction of Tenant Due to Landlord’s Necessity in Turkey

The Turkish rental market operates under a comprehensive legal framework that balances the rights of property owners with the protections afforded to tenants. Among the various grounds for terminating a lease agreement, eviction based on the landlord’s necessity stands as one of the most frequently utilized yet carefully regulated mechanisms. This provision allows property owners to reclaim their premises when genuine housing or business needs arise, but the law imposes strict requirements to prevent abuse and protect tenants from arbitrary displacement.

Understanding the nuances of necessity-based eviction is essential for both landlords seeking to reclaim their properties and tenants who wish to understand their rights. The legal framework governing these cases has evolved significantly, particularly with the enactment of the Turkish Code of Obligations in 2011, which replaced the outdated provisions of the previous rental law. The current system requires landlords to demonstrate that their need is genuine, sincere, and compelling—a standard that Turkish courts scrutinize carefully.

 

Legal Foundation for Necessity-Based Eviction

The legal basis for eviction due to landlord’s necessity is found primarily in Articles 350 and 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098). These provisions establish the framework under which landlords can terminate lease agreements when they or certain family members require the property for residential or commercial use.

Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations states: “The landlord may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit within one month from the end of the term in fixed-term contracts, or within one month from the date determined in accordance with the termination period and notice period prescribed for termination in indefinite-term contracts, if there is a necessity to use the leased property as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ascendants, or other persons he is legally obliged to support.”

This provision applies to the original landlord who entered into the lease agreement with the tenant. However, Turkish law also recognizes that property changes hands, and the new owner may have legitimate needs for the property. Article 351 addresses this situation, stating: “If the person who subsequently acquires the leased property has a necessity to use it as a residence or workplace for himself, his spouse, his descendants, his ascendants, or other persons he is legally obliged to support, he may terminate the lease agreement by filing a lawsuit six months after notifying the tenant in writing within one month from the date of acquisition. The person who subsequently acquires the leased property may, if he wishes, exercise his right to terminate the contract due to necessity by filing a lawsuit within one month from the end of the contract term.”

These provisions establish a clear legal pathway but impose significant procedural and substantive requirements that must be satisfied for a successful eviction action.

Who Can File a Necessity-Based Eviction Lawsuit

Turkish law carefully delineates who qualifies as a potential beneficiary of necessity-based eviction. The landlord cannot claim necessity for just anyone; the law limits this ground to specific relationships that reflect genuine family or legal obligations.

The landlord may file an eviction lawsuit based on the housing or business needs of:

• The landlord himself or herself
• The landlord’s spouse
• The landlord’s descendants (children, grandchildren, and further generations)
• The landlord’s ascendants (parents, grandparents, and earlier generations)
• Other persons whom the landlord is legally obligated to support under Turkish law

This limitation serves an important purpose: preventing landlords from fabricating necessity claims for distant relatives or unrelated parties. The emphasis on direct lineal relationships and legal support obligations ensures that only genuine family needs can justify displacing a tenant from their home or business location.

Importantly, even when the necessity belongs to one of these qualifying individuals, the lawsuit must be filed by the landlord personally. For example, if a landlord’s adult child needs housing, the landlord—not the child—must initiate the eviction proceedings. This requirement prevents circumvention of the law’s protective provisions and ensures that the property owner takes direct responsibility for the eviction action.

In cases involving multiple property owners, Turkish courts have established specific rules. For properties under joint ownership (paylı mülkiyet), the eviction lawsuit must be filed by the majority of co-owners. For properties under communal ownership (iştirak halinde mülkiyet), unanimous consent is required, though this unanimity can be achieved by obtaining authorization after the lawsuit is filed. If unanimity cannot be reached, a guardian may be appointed to represent the estate and pursue the eviction on behalf of all owners.

Essential Requirements: Genuine, Sincere, and Compelling Necessity

The cornerstone of any necessity-based eviction case in Turkish law is proving that the claimed need is genuine (gerçek), sincere (samimi), and compelling (zorunlu). Turkish courts apply this three-part test rigorously, recognizing that eviction represents a significant hardship for tenants and should not be granted based on convenient or fabricated claims.

Genuine necessity means the need must actually exist at the time the lawsuit is filed. Speculative or future needs that have not yet materialized will not suffice. For instance, a landlord cannot claim necessity based on a child who might attend university in the city three years from now. The need must be present and demonstrable when the court evaluates the case.

Sincere necessity requires that the landlord’s true motivation be the claimed need, not some other purpose such as securing a higher rent from a new tenant, harassing the current tenant, or avoiding legal obligations. Courts examine the circumstances carefully to detect pretextual claims. If evidence suggests the landlord has ulterior motives, the lawsuit will be rejected regardless of whether some theoretical need exists.

Compelling necessity means the landlord has no reasonable alternative to evicting the tenant. If the landlord owns other suitable properties that could meet the claimed need, or if reasonable alternatives exist (such as renting elsewhere), courts may find the necessity insufficiently compelling to justify eviction. The law recognizes property rights but requires landlords to exhaust other options before displacing tenants.

Turkish courts have recognized numerous situations that can constitute valid necessity:

• The landlord currently lives in rental housing and needs to occupy their own property
• Health conditions require the landlord to relocate to the specific property in question
• The landlord’s current residence is inadequate for their family’s needs
• The landlord or family member must relocate to the city where the property is located for employment or education
• Marital separation creates a need for separate housing
• The property has features (security, location, accessibility) that make it uniquely suited to the landlord’s needs
• The landlord’s adult child is forming an independent household through marriage or otherwise

However, courts have also identified circumstances that typically do not qualify as compelling necessity:

• Minor inconveniences in the landlord’s current housing situation
• Mere preference for one property over another without objective justification
• Distance between home and workplace in cities with adequate public transportation
• General desire to use one’s own property without specific need
• Economic motivations to increase rental income

Procedural Requirements and Timing for Filing

Turkish law establishes strict procedural requirements and deadlines for necessity-based eviction lawsuits. These timing rules are considered matters of public order (kamu düzeni), meaning courts must enforce them even if the tenant does not raise the issue. A lawsuit filed outside the permitted timeframe will be dismissed regardless of how genuine the landlord’s necessity might be.

For fixed-term lease agreements, which are the most common type in Turkish rental practice, the landlord must file the eviction lawsuit within one month after the lease term expires. For example, if a one-year lease runs from January 1 to December 31, the landlord must file the lawsuit between January 1 and January 31 of the following year. This one-month window is strictly enforced.

Turkish law does, however, provide a mechanism for extending this deadline. Under Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: “If the landlord notifies the tenant in writing that he will file a lawsuit within the period prescribed for filing the lawsuit, the period for filing the lawsuit is extended for one rental year.” This means that if the landlord sends written notice to the tenant before the one-month deadline expires, stating their intention to file an eviction lawsuit based on necessity, they gain an additional full year to actually file the case. This extension can be valuable when the landlord’s necessity is developing but not yet fully crystallized, or when the landlord wishes to give the tenant maximum notice.

For indefinite-term lease agreements, the timing rules are more complex. The landlord must follow the general termination provisions found in Article 328 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which requires three months’ advance notice before the end of each six-month rental period. After providing proper notice, the landlord must file the eviction lawsuit within one month from the end of that six-month period.

For example, if an indefinite-term lease began on May 1, the first six-month period runs from May 1 to October 31. To file an eviction lawsuit for the end of that period, the landlord must provide written notice by July 31 (three months before October 31) and then file the lawsuit between November 1 and November 30. If these deadlines are missed, the landlord must wait for the next six-month period and repeat the process.

Special Rules for New Property Owners

When a property changes ownership during an active lease, Turkish law recognizes that the new owner may have legitimate necessity claims but also seeks to protect tenants from being immediately displaced by property transfers. Article 351 establishes a dual-track system for new owners.

The new property owner has two options for pursuing necessity-based eviction:

Option 1: The Six-Month Track

The new owner may send written notice to the tenant within one month of acquiring the property, informing them of the ownership change and the new owner’s necessity. If this notification requirement is met, the new owner may file an eviction lawsuit six months after the acquisition date. The property can continue to be occupied by the tenant during this six-month period, but the new owner is building toward the eviction action.

This six-month waiting period serves multiple purposes. It gives the tenant time to prepare for potential displacement, allows the new owner to confirm that their necessity is genuine and enduring, and prevents speculative property flippers from immediately evicting tenants. However, this option requires strict compliance with timing: the written notice must be sent within one month of acquisition, and failure to meet this deadline eliminates the six-month track entirely.

Option 2: The Contract Expiration Track

Alternatively, the new owner may choose to respect the existing lease term and file an eviction lawsuit within one month after the lease expires, just as the original landlord could have done. This option does not require the one-month notification to the tenant and may be preferable when the lease is already nearing its end or when the new owner’s necessity develops after the acquisition.

The new owner cannot use both tracks simultaneously. Once they choose one approach and take action (such as sending the notification for the six-month track), they are bound by that choice.

An important limitation exists when the lease has been registered (şerh) in the land registry. Under Article 312 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, lease agreements can be recorded in the land registry, creating legal notice to all subsequent purchasers. If a lease is properly registered, the new owner cannot use the six-month track at all and must wait until the lease term expires. This protection can last up to ten years or until the lease term ends, whichever comes first. Registration provides tenants with powerful protection against eviction by new owners but requires proactive legal action at the time the lease is signed.

Proving Necessity in Court

The burden of proof in necessity-based eviction cases falls squarely on the landlord. Turkish courts will not simply accept assertions of necessity at face value; landlords must present concrete evidence demonstrating that their claimed need is genuine, sincere, and compelling.

Landlords may prove necessity through any legally admissible evidence, including:

• Documentary evidence such as employment contracts, university acceptance letters, or medical reports
• Lease agreements showing the landlord currently rents elsewhere
• Witness testimony from family members, employers, or others with knowledge of the situation
• Expert reports on the suitability of properties for specific needs
• Official correspondence demonstrating relocation requirements
• Marriage certificates, divorce decrees, or custody orders creating housing needs
• Property records showing the landlord has no other available housing

For residential necessity claims, Turkish courts typically find that a landlord who currently lives in rented housing has demonstrated sufficient necessity, as ownership rights should allow one to occupy their own property. However, this presumption can be overcome if evidence shows the landlord has other owned properties available or if the claimed necessity appears pretextual.

For commercial or workplace necessity claims, the evidentiary requirements are more demanding. The landlord must show not only that they need business premises but that the specific property in question is suitable for their business operations. Courts may appoint expert witnesses to compare the leased property with the landlord’s current business location, evaluating factors such as:

• Size and layout appropriate for the intended business use
• Location and accessibility for the business type
• Compliance with zoning and licensing requirements for the intended use
• Customer base and market presence in the area

If the landlord operates a business through a corporate entity, Turkish courts have established that the business activity must fall within the company’s articles of association. A company cannot claim necessity to use property for a business purpose not listed in its formation documents.

For new owners claiming necessity, courts scrutinize whether the purchase itself suggests genuine need or opportunistic speculation. Evidence that a new owner acquired multiple properties simultaneously, paid an unusually low price, or quickly resold the property after evicting the tenant may suggest the necessity claim was insincere.

Tenant Defenses and Rights

Tenants facing necessity-based eviction lawsuits have several potential defenses and procedural rights that can challenge the eviction or delay its implementation.

Challenging the Genuineness of Necessity

The tenant’s primary defense is to dispute whether the landlord’s claimed necessity is genuine, sincere, and compelling. Tenants may present evidence showing:

• The landlord owns other suitable properties that could meet the claimed need
• The landlord’s circumstances have not actually changed since the lease began
• The timing or circumstances of the claim suggest pretextual motives
• The claimed beneficiary of the necessity does not actually intend to use the property
• Viable alternatives exist that would not require the tenant’s eviction

Turkish courts give tenants considerable latitude to develop these defenses, including through witness testimony and document requests.

Procedural Defects

Because timing requirements are strictly enforced, tenants should carefully examine whether the landlord complied with all deadlines and notice requirements. Common procedural defenses include:

• The lawsuit was filed outside the one-month window after lease expiration
• For indefinite-term leases, proper notice periods were not followed
• For new owners using the six-month track, the written notice was not sent within one month of acquisition
• For new owners, the six-month waiting period had not elapsed when the lawsuit was filed

If any procedural defect exists, the court must dismiss the case, though the landlord may potentially file a new lawsuit if proper procedures are followed.

The Three-Year Re-Rental Prohibition

Even after losing an eviction case, tenants retain an important protection under Turkish law. Article 355 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides: “If the landlord secures the eviction of the leased property for necessity purposes, he cannot rent the property to someone other than the former tenant for three years unless there is a justified reason.”

This prohibition serves as a powerful deterrent against fabricated necessity claims. If the landlord rents the property to a new tenant within three years after evicting the original tenant based on necessity, the evicted tenant can sue for damages. The minimum compensation is one year’s rent at the rate prevailing during the final year of the tenancy, though actual damages may be higher.

The three-year prohibition does not apply if a “justified reason” exists for re-renting. Turkish courts have interpreted this exception narrowly, typically requiring circumstances that arose after the eviction and were not foreseeable. Examples include:

• The landlord or family member who needed the property experienced a significant health change making occupancy impossible
• Employment circumstances changed, requiring relocation away from the property
• The beneficiary of the necessity died or otherwise became unable to use the property
• Force majeure events made the property unsuitable for the intended use

Importantly, circumstances that existed at the time of eviction—even if they prevented the landlord from actually using the property—generally do not constitute justified reasons. Turkish courts have ruled that if a landlord evicts a tenant based on necessity but then cannot remove a dividing wall between units as planned, this does not justify re-renting because the issue was foreseeable at the time of eviction.

However, a significant limitation exists on this protection: Turkish courts have held that the prohibition and resulting damages only apply when the tenant was actually evicted through judicial proceedings and enforcement. If a tenant voluntarily vacates after receiving a notice of necessity without a court judgment being rendered and enforced, the three-year prohibition does not apply. This interpretation has been controversial, as it arguably encourages landlords to pressure tenants into voluntary departure while avoiding the legal consequences of fabricated necessity claims.

Court Proceedings and Enforcement

Necessity-based eviction lawsuits must be filed in the Civil Court of First Instance (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi) located in the jurisdiction where the property is situated. The court filing fees are calculated based on the annual rental value of the property, making these proceedings relatively affordable for most landlords.

Before filing a court case, landlords and tenants must now participate in mandatory mediation. Since September 1, 2023, amendments to the Mediation in Legal Disputes Law (No. 6325) made mediation a prerequisite for all rental disputes, including necessity-based evictions. This requirement means parties must attempt to resolve their dispute through a mediator before the court will accept the lawsuit. The mediation process typically takes one to three months and suspends the applicable deadlines for filing the eviction lawsuit. Once mediation concludes—whether successfully or not—the time limits resume from where they left off.

The mediation requirement serves several purposes: it may enable negotiated solutions such as extended move-out periods, it reduces court congestion, and it forces parties to confront the strengths and weaknesses of their positions before expensive litigation. However, it also delays the process and adds an additional procedural hurdle.

If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, the landlord files the formal complaint in court. Turkish civil procedure follows an inquisitorial model where the judge plays an active role in developing the case. After the initial pleadings, the court typically orders a preliminary hearing where procedural issues are addressed. If the case survives preliminary objections, the court proceeds to evidence-gathering, which may include:

• Document review and authentication
• Witness examination, typically conducted by the judge with party input
• On-site inspection of the property and the landlord’s current residence
• Expert witness reports on property suitability or comparative analysis
• Depositions of parties and third parties

Turkish civil procedure allows multiple hearing sessions as evidence is developed. The process typically takes 12 to 24 months from filing to judgment, though complex cases or crowded court dockets can extend this timeline significantly.

Once the court issues a judgment, the losing party may appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) within two weeks if the value of the dispute exceeds the finality threshold. As of 2025, this threshold is 40,660 Turkish Lira for Civil Courts of First Instance. If the annual rental value of the property is below this amount, the first-instance judgment is final and cannot be appealed.

For cases that exceed the finality threshold, the appeals process adds significant time—typically 8 to 18 months. If the Regional Court of Appeal affirms the eviction order, the tenant may seek further review by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) if the case involves a novel legal question or if the appellate court’s decision conflicts with established precedent.

Importantly, eviction judgments in Turkish law are immediately enforceable even before appeals are exhausted. This means a landlord who wins at the first-instance court can immediately initiate enforcement proceedings through the local Execution Office (İcra Müdürlüğü) without waiting for appeals to conclude.

However, tenants have one important tool to delay enforcement: they may seek a stay of execution (icranın geri bırakılması) by depositing three months’ rent into the court’s account and demonstrating that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm. If the court grants the stay, the enforcement is suspended until the appeals process concludes. This protection prevents landlords from evicting tenants only to have the eviction reversed on appeal, but it requires the tenant to have sufficient financial resources to post the deposit.

Once an eviction judgment becomes enforceable and no stay is in effect, the enforcement process moves quickly:

1. The landlord requests an execution order from the Execution Office
2. The Execution Office sends an eviction notice to the tenant, typically giving 10 days to vacate voluntarily
3. If the tenant does not vacate, the Execution Office schedules a forced eviction with police assistance
4. The property is physically emptied, with the tenant’s belongings inventoried and placed in storage if necessary
5. The property is delivered to the landlord with an official transfer protocol

The tenant cannot prevent enforcement by filing objections, as the court judgment has already determined the merits. The only recourse is seeking the stay of execution described above.

Corporate Landlords and Commercial Necessity

When the landlord is a corporate entity rather than a natural person, Turkish courts apply additional scrutiny to necessity claims. The underlying principle is that a company can only legitimately need property for business purposes that fall within its charter and operational scope.

For a corporate landlord to successfully pursue necessity-based eviction, it must demonstrate:

• The intended use of the property falls within the company’s articles of association and stated business purposes
• The company has actual business operations requiring the specific property
• The property is suitable for the company’s business activities
• No alternative corporate-owned properties can meet the need

Turkish courts have rejected necessity claims where a company sought to use property for purposes not listed in its formation documents, reasoning that the company legally cannot have a “necessity” for activities it is not authorized to conduct.

However, Turkish courts have also recognized that legitimate business needs can justify eviction. These include:

• Expanding existing business operations into the leased space
• Consolidating scattered operations into a single location
• Opening a new business line authorized under the corporate charter
• Relocating operations to a more suitable or strategic location

The key distinction is between legitimate business necessity and mere economic opportunism. A company cannot claim necessity simply because evicting the current tenant would allow it to re-rent at a higher rate or to a more desirable tenant. Courts examine whether the company’s business operations genuinely require the specific property or whether economic motivations drive the eviction claim.

For commercial necessity claims—whether by individual or corporate landlords—Turkish courts frequently order expert inspections comparing the landlord’s current business location with the leased property. The expert examines:

• Comparative size, layout, and functionality
• Access to customer base and foot traffic
• Zoning compliance and licensing requirements
• Proximity to suppliers, employees, or other business needs
• Overall suitability for the specific business operations

If the expert report shows the properties are roughly equivalent, courts typically apply a principle of “ownership preference”—the landlord’s property right tips the balance in favor of eviction even if the current location might be marginally better in some respects. However, if the leased property is substantially inferior for the landlord’s business needs, courts may reject the necessity claim as not sufficiently compelling.

Practical Considerations and Strategic Planning

Both landlords and tenants benefit from understanding the practical realities of necessity-based eviction cases and planning accordingly.

For Landlords:

Documenting necessity is crucial from the outset. Landlords should gather and preserve evidence supporting their claims well before filing suit. This includes:

• Maintaining records of rental payments if the landlord currently leases elsewhere
• Obtaining written confirmation of employment transfers, educational enrollment, or other triggering events
• Collecting medical documentation if health needs drive the necessity
• Preserving communications demonstrating the family member’s housing needs
• Taking photographs or videos of current living conditions if inadequacy is claimed

Timing is equally critical. Landlords should calendar all relevant deadlines and consider whether using the extended filing period under Article 353 makes sense for their circumstances. Missing the one-month deadline after lease expiration means waiting another full year for the next opportunity.

For new owners, the choice between the six-month track and the contract expiration track should be made carefully at the time of acquisition, considering how long until the lease expires and how urgent the necessity is.

Landlords should also realistically assess the strength of their necessity claim before filing suit. Weak or questionable claims not only risk dismissal but may expose the landlord to liability for the tenant’s legal costs. Consulting with legal counsel before initiating proceedings can prevent costly mistakes.

Finally, landlords must understand that winning the lawsuit is only the first step. If they re-rent the property within three years without a justified reason, they face potential damages. Landlords should carefully plan their long-term use of the property before displacing a tenant.

For Tenants:

Tenants who receive necessity-based eviction notices should first verify the procedural requirements were met. Checking dates carefully may reveal timing defects that require dismissal of the case.

If procedures were followed correctly, tenants should investigate the landlord’s actual circumstances. Does the landlord truly have the claimed need, or do circumstances suggest another motivation? Gathering information through informal investigation, public records searches, or discovery in the lawsuit may reveal weaknesses in the landlord’s case.

Tenants should also assess whether defending the case makes practical sense. If the landlord’s necessity appears genuine and well-documented, fighting the eviction may simply delay the inevitable while incurring legal expenses. In such cases, negotiating an extended move-out period or a financial settlement may be more practical than litigation.

However, if the necessity claim appears dubious, tenants should vigorously defend their rights. Winning the case allows continued occupancy under the existing lease terms. Even if eviction ultimately occurs, the three-year re-rental prohibition provides valuable protection, and any subsequent re-renting triggers the right to damages.

Tenants should also preserve evidence of the landlord’s subsequent use of the property after eviction. If re-renting occurs within three years, documentation such as photographs of real estate advertisements, conversations with new tenants, or property management communications can support a damages claim.

Mandatory Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

The introduction of mandatory mediation in September 2023 represents a significant shift in how rental disputes, including necessity-based evictions, are handled in Turkey. Under the amended Mediation in Legal Disputes Law, parties must attempt resolution through mediation before the courts will accept an eviction lawsuit.

The mediation process works as follows:

1. The party seeking eviction (typically the landlord) applies to a registered mediator, selecting from the official roster maintained by the Ministry of Justice
2. The mediator contacts both parties and schedules an initial session, usually within two to four weeks
3. Parties attend mediation sessions where the mediator facilitates discussion and explores potential solutions
4. If agreement is reached, the mediator prepares a settlement agreement that has the force of a court judgment
5. If mediation fails, the mediator issues a final report documenting the attempt, which the landlord must submit when filing the lawsuit

The mediation requirement suspends the applicable time limits for filing eviction cases. When the landlord initiates mediation, the clock stops on the one-month deadline for filing suit. Once mediation concludes—whether through settlement or final report—the time limit resumes with whatever time remained when mediation began.

For example, if a lease expires on January 31 and the landlord has until February 28 to file suit, initiating mediation on February 15 with 13 days remaining stops the clock. If mediation concludes on March 30 with a final report showing no agreement, the landlord then has 13 days (until approximately April 12) to file the lawsuit.

Mediation offers several potential benefits:

• Faster resolution than court proceedings (typically 1-3 months versus 12-24 months)
• Lower costs, as mediator fees are modest and legal representation is optional
• Creative solutions not available in court, such as phased move-out schedules or financial assistance
• Preservation of relationships, which may matter when ongoing neighborhood or business connections exist
• Flexibility in addressing both parties’ concerns and interests

However, mediation also has limitations in necessity-based eviction cases:

• Power imbalances may favor landlords who have more resources and legal knowledge
• Tenants may feel pressured to accept disadvantageous terms to avoid the uncertainty of litigation
• No mechanism exists to compel evidence production or verify the landlord’s necessity claims during mediation
• Settlement agreements, while enforceable, do not receive the same appellate review as court judgments

Whether mediation produces positive outcomes depends significantly on the good faith of the parties and the skill of the mediator. Tenants should approach mediation as a serious opportunity to explore settlement but should not feel compelled to accept terms that sacrifice their legitimate rights. Similarly, landlords with genuine necessity should view mediation as a chance to negotiate transition periods and terms rather than as an obstacle to overcome.

The Intersection with Foreign Nationals and International Elements

Turkey’s rental market includes significant participation by foreign nationals, both as landlords and tenants. Necessity-based eviction cases involving international elements present additional considerations.

Foreign landlords may pursue necessity-based eviction under the same legal framework as Turkish citizens, with one important qualification: the necessity must relate to use of the property within Turkey. A foreign landlord cannot claim they need the property for a family member living abroad unless that person will actually relocate to Turkey to occupy the premises. Courts examine whether the claimed necessity is genuine in this context, potentially requiring evidence of visa applications, work permits, or other documentation supporting the intended occupation.

Foreign tenants facing eviction enjoy the same protections as Turkish tenants. The courts apply the same standards for evaluating whether the landlord’s necessity is genuine, sincere, and compelling, regardless of the tenant’s nationality. However, practical considerations may affect foreign tenants differently:

• Language barriers may complicate participation in mediation and court proceedings, though interpreters are available
• Limited local knowledge may make it harder to challenge the landlord’s claims about property availability or local circumstances
• Visa or residence permit implications may create additional urgency to find alternative housing
• Cross-border enforcement of judgments or damages awards may be more complex if the landlord or tenant leaves Turkey

For foreign tenants, obtaining legal representation is particularly important, as navigating Turkish civil procedure and presenting effective evidence requires familiarity with local practice and court expectations.

 

For more assistance or consultation on this matter, you can contact us.