EN
TR
Anahtar Kelimeler: Konut ve çatılı işyeri kirası, yeniden kiralama yasağı, tahliye, kiracının tazminat talebi, medeni hukuk cezası ABSTRACT…
In residence and roofed workplace rentals, where the lessor evicts the lessee on the grounds of necessity or for the purpose of reconstruction or restoration, TCO art. 355/1 and 2 prescribes a prohibition for the lessor to lease the property to someone other than the lessee within three years without a justified reason. The behavior of the lessor against this prohibition, that is, -with the compact expression of the Law- the prohibition of re-leasing, gives rise to a basis for compensation claim characterized as a civil penalty in favor of the lessee through TCO art 355/3. In such a case, the former lessee is entitled to demand compensation from the lessor in an amount not less than the one-year rent paid in the last lease period. At first sight, although one may think that the scope of application can be clearly ascertained from the wording of the respective article, some problems in rental practice are such as to weaken this impression. In this study, two important issues engendering controversy with regard to the respective article will be examined. One of them is about the matter of whether a court decision for eviction and even an execution of eviction through the compulsory enforcement is a requirement in order for the sanction set out by TCO art. 355/3 to apply (i.e. the right to compensation to arise). Another problematic issue to be addressed is whether the leaving the use of the leased property to someone else by the lessor through legal transactions other than the lease contract (e.g. by establishing usufruct or right of residence) is within the scope of the prohibition.…
Keywords: Residence and roofed workplace rental, prohıbıton of re-leasıng, eviction, the lessee’s claim for compensation, civil penalty…
