INTRODUCTION

Within the framework of the Turkish law of obligations, the lease agreement is classified as a continuous obligatory relationship, imposing mutual performances on the parties and generally establishing a long-term legal bond. Pursuant to Article 299 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, a lease agreement is defined as a contract whereby the lessor undertakes to leave the use of a thing, or the use together with the benefit therefrom, to the lessee, and the lessee undertakes to pay a rent in return. The continuous nature of this contract renders the relationship susceptible to fluctuating economic and social conditions over time, thereby elevating the issue of termination to a position of particular significance. The termination of a lease agreement does not merely signify the dissolution of the contractual bond; it also entails consequences such as the restitution of the leased premises, the liquidation of mutual debts, and, frequently, the emergence of legal disputes. Consequently, the modes of termination necessitate a detailed analysis within the framework of both statutory regulations and judicial precedents.

With the enactment of Turkish Code Of Obligations No. 6098, lease law has evolved into a structure based on the principle of protecting the lessee as a requirement of the social state principle, rather than mere freedom of contract. The termination of a lease agreement represents the primary arena where the delicate balance between property rights and the freedom of housing and work is manifested. This study examines the procedures for terminating lease agreements through the axes of notification and eviction lawsuits, in light of contemporary doctrinal views and the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation. The focus of the study lies in the characterization of the numerus clausus (limited) eviction grounds specific to residential and roofed workplace leases.

KEYWORDS: Lease Agreement, Residential and Roofed Workplace Lease, Notice of Termination, Eviction Lawsuit, Fixed-term / Indefinite-term Contract, Ten-year Extension Period, Default of the Lessee, Continuous Obligatory Relationship.

1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LEASE AGREEMENTS

As stipulated in Article 299 of the Turkish Code Of Obligations, lease agreements are defined as follows: “A lease agreement is a contract whereby the lessor undertakes to leave the use of a thing, or the use together with the benefit therefrom, to the lessee, and the lessee undertakes to pay the agreed rent in return.” In terms of its legal nature, a lease agreement is a consensual, continuous-performance contract that imposes full mutual obligations on both parties.

While the mutual and concurrent declarations of intent by the parties are sufficient for the formation of the contract, no specific form requirement is generally sought as a rule. However, in practice, written lease agreements are widely preferred for the purpose of facilitating proof.

The essential elements of a lease agreement consist of the leased property, the rent, and the mutual agreement between the lessor and the lessee regarding the subject and the price. While the leased item may be movable or immovable, the rent is predominantly determined in currency, though it may also be agreed upon as another performance measurable in monetary terms.

Lease agreements, which involve mutual performances where one of the primary obligations is continuous due to the element of time, are evaluated within the scope of contracts establishing a continuous obligatory relationship.

The Turkish Code Of Obligations categorizes lease agreements into three main types: ordinary leases, residential and roofed workplace leases, and usufructuary (agricultural) leases. Due to the economically weaker position of the lessee, especially in residential and roofed workplace leases, the legislator has introduced protective provisions. This protectionism is also evident in the grounds for termination, where the lessor’s possibilities for terminating the contract are significantly restricted.

2. GROUNDS FOR THE TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENTS

The termination of a lease agreement is shaped through various legal mechanisms depending on the legal nature of the contract (ordinary lease, residential/roofed workplace lease, or usufructuary lease) and the facts of the specific case.

In the systematic of the Turkish Code Of Obligations, these termination regimes are structured into categories: automatic termination, notice of termination as a constitutive right, eviction lawsuits based on limited grounds stipulated by law, and cases shaped around the principle of good faith. The mandatory protective provisions adopted by the legislator regarding residential and roofed workplace leases have limited the parties’ freedom of will in favor of public order by subjecting termination to stricter formal and temporal requirements compared to general provisions.

2.1. Expiry of Term and Termination Regime in Fixed-Term and Indefinite-Term Lease Agreements

In fixed-term lease agreements, the expiry of the term is generally accepted as a ground for termination. However, the mere expiration of the agreed period does not automatically terminate the lease relationship. For the contractual bond to be dissolved, at least one of the parties must manifest their will to terminate within the prescribed periods; otherwise, the failure to provide notice is accepted as a reflection of the parties’ implicit intent to maintain the contract, and the relationship continues to exist. Even if a notification made by the parties is termed a “notice of termination,” it is, by nature, declaratory rather than constitutive.

This rule is not absolute regarding residential and roofed workplace leases. Pursuant to Article 347 of the Turkish Code Of Obligations, while the lessee may terminate the contract at the end of a fixed-term agreement without providing any justification, the lessor does not possess the same liberty. This remains valid for indefinite-term lease agreements as well, where the lessor cannot terminate the contract unless ten years have elapsed from the commencement date.

The relevant article states: “In residential and roofed workplace leases, unless the lessee gives notice at least fifteen days before the end of the term of fixed-term contracts, the contract shall be deemed extended for one year under the same conditions. The lessor cannot terminate the contract based on the expiry of the contract term.” Thus, the lessor’s ability to terminate is restricted.

On the other hand, upon the expiration of the ten-year renewal period, the lessor’s freedom of termination expands; it becomes possible to terminate the lease relationship without asserting any specific grounds, provided that the notice requirement is met at least three months prior to the end of each subsequent one-year period.This three-month notification period represents a minimum threshold, and contractual provisions that shorten this duration are deemed null and void. Conversely, delivering the notice to the tenant earlier than the statutory period is consistent with the rule of good faith and the legislative intent, as it provides the tenant with a broader opportunity to make necessary preparations. Therefore, a notice of termination served four months prior to the expiration of the lease constitutes a valid declaration of intent, as it encompasses the minimum period requirement, and terminates the contract in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

In indefinite-term lease relationships, the automatic dissolution (ipso jure termination) of the contract does not occur. This type of contract, which is under-structured regarding termination provisions, is categorized as “incomplete contracts” or “contracts in need of completion.” The legislator resolved the uncertainty surrounding the termination of these agreements through the ordinary termination notice process set forth in Article 328 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This regulation serves as a fundamental regulatory tool that balances the continuity of indefinite-term contracts with the parties’ unilateral and periodic declarations of termination

2.2. Termination by Notice

2.2.1. Termination Due to Default of the Lessee

The legislator did not leave irregularities in the payment of rent to the general default regime but brought the issue into a special area of regulation with Article 315 of the Turkish Code Of Obligations. According to this regulation, a delay in the payment of the due rent or secondary expenses grants the lessor the authority to terminate the contract. However, the exercise of this right is subject to a procedural condition: the lessor is obliged to grant the lessee a reasonable additional period (mehil) to fulfill the debt.

2.2.2. Breach of the Duty of Care and Defects in the Leased Property

The general provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations regarding lease law encompass various protection mechanisms that grant the parties the authority to terminate the agreement in the event of a breach of fundamental contractual obligations. Within this scope, the tenant’s failure to fulfill the duty to use the property with care and to show respect to neighbors is regulated as a justifiable ground for termination pursuant to Article 316 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, insofar as it renders the continuation of the lease relationship unbearable for the lessor.

On the other hand, where the contractual balance is impaired to the tenant’s disadvantage; specifically regarding the delivery of the property in a defective state or defects arising throughout the course of the lease, the tenant is entitled to terminate the contract under the lessor’s liability for defects

2.2.3. Termination for Important Reasons 

While the fundamental principle in lease law is pacta sunt servanda (adherence to the contract), the legislator has provided an exit route for situations that render the continuation of the relationship impossible. “Termination for important reasons,” regulated in Article 331 of the Turkish Code Of Obligations, is a general method applicable to both movable and immovable leases. This mechanism serves as a safety valve, liberating parties from the obligation to remain bound until the expiry of fixed-term contracts.

The legislator avoided a rigid definition of the concept of “important reason,” leaving discretionary power to the judge. In light of doctrine and judicial decisions, an important reason is defined as a situation where the continuation of the lease relationship until the nearest ordinary termination period becomes unbearably burdensome for one of the parties under the principle of good faith. The primary criterion here is “unbearability” (çekilmezlik). For a fact to be considered a ground for termination, continuing the contract must exceed the limits of what is reasonable and tolerable for the relevant party.

In this context, deep hostility, severe health problems, unforeseen job transfers, war, or severe economic crises may be evaluated as important reasons. However, certain conditions must be met:

1. Presence of a Justified Reason: The reason must be unforeseen at the time of the contract.
2. Lack of Fault: The terminating party must not be at fault for the emergence of the reason.
3. Compliance with Notice Periods: While termination periods do not apply, statutory notice periods (3 months for immovables) must be observed.
4. Notice: The notification must clearly state the importance of the reason.

Termination for important reasons terminates the agreement with future effect (ex nunc). Distinguishing itself from the repealed Code of Obligations No. 818, the new regulation has expanded judicial discretion and abolished the strict limits regarding the amount of compensation. The judge decides the monetary consequences of the termination based on the principle of equity, taking into account the balance of interests between the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. Particularly in residential and roofed workplace leases, pursuant to the principle of tenant protection, this method of termination should not be utilized as a tool to circumvent the principle of the exhaustiveness (numerus clausus) of eviction grounds and is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

In conclusion, termination for important reasons is an exceptional legal remedy that establishes a balance between the rule of good faith and the principle of pacta sunt servanda (adherence to the contract); however, it must be resorted to only as a “last resort” (ultima ratio).

2.2.4. Death of the Lessee

Although the death of the lessee is a special ground for termination, the authority to terminate is granted exclusively to the heirs of the lessee; no similar right is granted to the lessor. Accordingly, heirs may terminate the contract at the end of the nearest period by complying with the statutory notice periods.s Per the principle of “universal succession,” heirs maintain their status as parties to the contract until termination occurs and remain legally obligated to fulfill all contractual duties, such as the payment of rent

2.3. Termination via Lawsuit

In the Turkish legal system, the Turkish Code Of Obligations No. 6098 limits the lessor’s authority to terminate the contract to specific and exhaustive grounds. These eviction grounds are numerus clausus; new grounds cannot be created against the lessee outside those listed in the law. Termination via lawsuit is examined in two main categories: reasons originating from the lessor and reasons originating from the lessee.

Primary among the lessor’s grounds is the “necessity” (need) for the property to be used as a residence or workplace (Art. 350). This necessity must be real, sincere, and compulsory. Similarly, “reconstruction and urban development” covers situations where the use of the property becomes impossible during essential repairs. For new owners, a right is granted to request eviction for necessity, provided a written notice is given within one month of acquisition, followed by a lawsuit six months later.

On the other side of eviction procedures lie the legal grounds arising from the tenant’s own conduct. Foremost among these grounds, as regulated under Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, is the “written eviction undertaking” (tahliye taahhüdü) provided by the tenant after the delivery of the immovable property. Should the tenant fail to fulfill this obligation despite having undertaken to vacate the premises on a specific date, the lessor may resort to execution proceedings or litigation within one month. Another significant and frequently encountered ground is the institution of “two justified notices.” This remedy is exclusively applicable to residential and roofed workplace leases; an eviction lawsuit may be filed at the end of the term against a tenant who has been served two written and justified notices within a single lease year or period due to the non-payment of rent.

3. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION

Upon the termination of the lease agreement, a liquidation process commences between the parties. During this phase, the lessee is under the obligation to return the leased premises in a state compliant with the contractual terms. Should the lessee fail to return the premises, the lessor’s right to claim damages may arise. Furthermore, outstanding debts pertaining to rent and ancillary expenses must also be liquidated.

The restitution of the security deposit (guarantee deposit) is contingent upon the lessee’s fulfillment of all contractual obligations. Additionally, if any loss is incurred due to a breach of contract by either party, claims for compensation may be brought to the fore within the scope of contractual liability.

CONCLUSION

The grounds for termination of lease agreements in Turkish law are meticulously regulated through both statutory provisions and judicial precedents. While these regulations aim to protect the tenant, they also take into account the proprietary rights of the lessor. However, disputes arising in practice indicate that the existing framework is not always sufficient. Particularly, the rent increases experienced in metropolitan areas and the resulting conflicts demonstrate that lease law remains a highly relevant and continuously evolving field. In this context, it is of paramount importance that the provisions regarding the termination of lease agreements be carefully evaluated in both legal doctrine and practice, and interpreted in a manner consistent with emerging needs.