Supreme Court Decisions on the Deposit Place for Rent Payment in Turkish Law

Supreme Court Decision on the Deposit Place for Rent Payment

The Supreme Court decision on the deposit place for rent payment is the outcome of the examination of appeals against court decisions regarding the deposit place between the tenant and the landlord.

Below are some Supreme Court decisions on this matter.

 

You can read our article containing the conditions, objections, parties to the lawsuit, courts, and sample petition of the determination of the deposit place.

Supreme Court Decision on the Deposit Place for Rent Payment (Precedent Cases):

 

---

(…) The entire amount of rent subject to enforcement was paid into the bank account designated in the deposit place determination decision on 16.04.2015. While the rejection of the lawsuit for the removal of the objection on the grounds that the rent subject to enforcement was paid is correct regarding the principal debt, the rejection decision concerning the accessories of the debt is incorrect. Accordingly, since the payment made on 16.04.2015 was made after the enforcement but before the lawsuit, the objection regarding the accessories of the enforcement should have been removed. The court should have decided to remove the objection concerning the accessories of the enforcement considering the payment made after the enforcement date. It is incorrect to reject the entire lawsuit in writing (…) EIGHTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2017/12397 Decision: 2017/9996

---

(…) The delivery of the key to the landlord, although it is a material fact within the legal transaction, results in a legal consequence aimed at the termination of the contract, and the issue of how it will be proved should be evaluated based on the amount of the annual rent according to article 288 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100, articles 200 and 201, effective from 1.10.2011). In other words, if the amount of the annual rent exceeds the limit of proof by documents and there is no explicit consent of the landlord, this matter can only be proven by documentary evidence; witnesses cannot be heard.

If the landlord refuses to take the key, the tenant should request the court to determine the deposit place, deliver the key to the designated place, and inform the landlord of the situation. The tenant’s obligation to return the rented property ends on the date the landlord is informed of the situation. Otherwise, the tenant’s contractual obligations, including paying rent, continue. (…) SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2015/4943 Decision: 2015/7513 Date: 22.09.2015

---

(…) Although the rental amount subject to warning was sent to the plaintiff at the residence by the defendant’s spouse Arif Yücel, Arif Yücel is not a party to the contract, so this payment cannot be considered a legal payment. The defendant determined the deposit place and paid the rental amount requested by the warning to the deposit place in their own name on 16.6.2000, but this payment was made after the legal 30-day period following the notification of the warning. Therefore, since the default occurred in both cases, the eviction of the rented property should have been decided, but the lawsuit was incorrectly rejected. The judgment must be overturned for this reason. (…) SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2000/10370 Decision: 2000/10553 Date: 12.12.2000

---

(…) The rent for July was deposited in the bank designated as the deposit place on 28.7.2000, and the rent for August was deposited on 3.8.2000. Therefore, since the enforcement payments were deposited into the court-designated deposit place before the enforcement, the defendant’s default cannot be mentioned. The lawsuit should have been dismissed, but it was incorrectly decided otherwise in writing. (…) SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2001/4982, Decision: 2001/5147, Date: 18.06.2001

---

(…) requested with the notary public’s warning dated 12/03/2012 and numbered 1576 that the rent payments be deposited into the account at the … branch, thus, determining a place where the client can deposit the rent payments, and requested that the account at the … branch or any suitable bank account in … be determined as the deposit place according to the latest lease agreement.

Since the dispute is related to the determination of the deposit place arising from uncontested judicial matters specified in article 362/ç of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision is not subject to appeal.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the request for appeal by the applicant’s attorney is REJECTED (…)(SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2012/18768, Decision: 2013/110, Date: 14.01.2013

---

(…) However, it is understood from the payment receipts subsequently submitted by the defendant that the payments were made through … and cover the period after the determination of the deposit place. In this case, the file of the Peace Court numbered 2009/160 D. and the records designated as the deposit place in this file should be obtained, and it should be determined whether the payments submitted by the defendant were made to the deposit place and whether they were calculated multiple times. A report should be obtained accordingly, and it should be determined whether the plaintiff has rent receivables. The judgment should be made based on this determination, and the decision based on insufficient expert report and incomplete examination is incorrect and must be overturned. (…) SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2016/2368, Decision: 2016/4857, Date: 21.06.2016

---

(…) The plaintiff is responsible for the rent payments until the date the decision on the determination of the deposit place was notified to the defendant landlord. The research conducted after the overturn revealed that the decision on the determination of the deposit place was notified to the landlord on 17.06.2009.

While it is correct to calculate the rent receivables until this date and make a judgment, as stated in the rationale of the judgment, a calculation error was made by the court, and since the short decision cannot be changed, the same amount was ruled in the reasoned decision.

Therefore, the court should calculate the rent receivables to be paid until 17.06.2009 and rule for the refund of the overpaid amount. The decision made with a calculation error in writing is incorrect and requires overturning (…). THIRD CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2017/8840, Decision: 2018/4241, Date: 19.04.2018

---

(…) Although the defendant argued during the trial that they deposited the amount of 2,918,000,000 TL, part of the annual rent, into the account designated as the deposit place, the court did not consider this argument, and no necessary investigation was conducted.

Since Antalya 3rd Peace Court, file numbered 003/91-61, designated the Antalya Vakıflar Bankası Central Branch as the deposit place, the court should have asked the relevant bank branch whether the mentioned amount was deposited into the account opened in the plaintiff’s name as claimed by the defendant. If the payment was not made, the current decision is correct; if the payment was made, a judgment should have been made by deducting it from the annual rent. The decision made without sufficient investigation is against the procedure and the law and requires overturning (…). THIRTEENTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2004/14880, Decision: 2004/16009, Date: 08.11.2004

---

(…) Although the court ruled for the refund of the rent based on the termination date, the rented property was not vacated on the termination date. The tenant is responsible for proving the evacuation date. Although the tenant claimed that they terminated the lease on 06.10.2011 by notice, they stated that they delivered the key of the rented property through the deposit place.

There is no document in the file regarding the notification of the deposit place decision. Therefore, the court should investigate the notification date of the deposit place decision to the landlord and hold the tenant responsible for the rent until the notification date and order the refund of the rent paid to the plaintiff after this date. The decision to refund the rent after 06.10.2011 is incorrect and requires overturning (…). SIXTH CIVIL CHAMBER Case: 2013/10911, Decision: 2014/3338, Date: 19.03.2014

---

For further assistance or consultation, you can contact us.