If one month has passed after the eviction undertaking, can eviction no longer be demanded, what can be done for eviction?

1. One-Month Forfeiture Period in Eviction Undertakings

Pursuant to Article 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) no. 6098 and Article 272 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), in order to demand eviction based on a written eviction undertaking, it is mandatory to initiate enforcement proceedings or file an eviction lawsuit within one month following the promised date.

Consequence of Exceeding the Period: According to Supreme Court decisions, lawsuits filed after one month from the promised date are rejected “due to time limits” (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2012/17285 ; 2015/9993 K). In the case subject to the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court numbered 2012/17285 E., 2013/887 K.; in the eviction lawsuit filed based on the eviction undertaking given by the tenant, it was determined that the lawsuit was filed after a period of 1 month from the promised eviction date. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawsuits based on eviction undertakings must be filed within this period, that prior warnings or declarations of intent would not preserve this period, but that the period could be preserved if enforcement proceedings were initiated within this period; and finding the decision to accept the case unlawful instead of rejecting it because the lawsuit was not filed within the period in the concrete case, it overturned the judgment.

Contract Renewal: Unless eviction is sought through enforcement proceedings or a lawsuit within one month, the lease agreement is considered to have been extended for one year (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2015/2874 ; 12th Civil Chamber, 2007/1826 K).In the case subject to the Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber’s decision numbered 2015/2874 E., 2015/2972 K.; eviction was sought based on the tenant’s undertaking to vacate the property at the end of the lease term, but it was determined that the lawsuit was filed after one month had passed from the committed date. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Article 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the right to eviction cannot be exercised if a lawsuit is not filed or enforcement proceedings are not initiated within this period, and that the lease agreement will be extended for one year; in the specific case, it stated that the eviction request should be rejected due to the lawsuit not being filed on time, and upheld the local court’s decision by rectifying its reasoning.

2. Actions and Exceptions for Eviction if the Period Has Expired

Even if one month has passed since the date specified in the eviction undertaking, eviction can only be sought if certain protective actions have been taken within the deadline:

Preservation of the Period with Enforcement Proceedings: If enforcement proceedings have been initiated within one month following the committed date, these proceedings preserve the lawsuit filing period. In this case, it is possible to file an eviction lawsuit even after the one-month period has passed (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2013/6214; 3rd Civil Chamber, 2017/6001 K).

Extension of Period by Written Notification (TBK Art. 353): If the lessor has notified the lessee in writing within the one-month period stipulated for filing the lawsuit, at the latest, that they will file an eviction lawsuit, the period for filing a lawsuit is deemed to have been extended for one rental year. In this case, a lawsuit can be filed until the end of the extended rental year following the notification (Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, 2018/3080 K; 3rd Civil Chamber, 2017/8734 K). In the case subject to the Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber’s decision numbered 2018/3080 E., 2018/6171 K.; in the lawsuit filed when eviction did not occur despite the eviction undertaking given by the lessee, the first instance court rejected the case on the grounds that it was not filed within the 1-month period. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the period for filing a lawsuit would be extended for one rental year if the lessor notified the lessee in writing within the period, in accordance with Article 353 of the Turkish Code of Obligations; it concluded that the lawsuit was timely, stating that in the specific case, this notification was made with a warning letter and the lawsuit was filed within this extended period. For this reason, it overturned the judgment, finding it unlawful to reject the case based on procedural timing instead of examining it on its merits.

Nature of the Warning: Merely notifying the intention to evict (a warning letter) is not sufficient to preserve the period; this warning must contain a clear notification “that a lawsuit will be filed” within the scope of TBK 353, or enforcement proceedings must be initiated directly (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2010/4392 K; 2012/2071 ).

3. Procedural and Implementation Principles

Method of Enforcement Proceedings: Eviction can be requested from the enforcement office based on an eviction undertaking in accordance with Article 272 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL). If the tenant objects, the eviction process is continued by filing an action for “annulment of objection” or “cancellation of objection” (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2011/15216 K; 2016/1966 

Reasonable Period and Follow-up: After the right to eviction is acquired, this right must be exercised within a reasonable period (generally 1 year). Inactivity for a long period (e.g., 1.5 years) may be interpreted as a renewal of the lease agreement (Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber, 2007/1826 K

4. Secondary Source Assessment

Secondary Source Note: The following points provide additional context when there is limited information in the decision texts:

The default periods (such as 30 days) stipulated for eviction requests in general lease relationships should not be confused with the one-month period for filing a lawsuit based on an eviction undertaking. In case of default, the payment period must be awaited to expire (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2014/11048 K

The nature of the immovable property (e.g., being subject to Law No. 2886) may change the eviction procedure; in this case, eviction can be requested based on the expiration of the term instead of the undertaking (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2015/3492 

If the foreseen 1-year period (Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 39) for the annulment of the eviction undertaking has passed, the undertaking is considered valid, and if the lawsuit was filed within the period, eviction may be ordered (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, 2015/792 K

In summary: If a 1-month period has passed without any action (enforcement proceedings, lawsuit, or written notification under TBK 353) from the date specified in the eviction undertaking, eviction cannot be demanded based on that undertaking. However, if enforcement proceedings have been initiated or a lawsuit has been formally announced in writing within this period, the eviction process can continue even after the one-month period has elapsed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Tahliye taahhüdünde 1 aylık süre geçerse kiracı artık çıkarılamaz mı?

Genel kural olarak evet.
Tahliye taahhüdünde belirtilen tarihten itibaren 1 ay içinde icra takibi başlatılmamış, dava açılmamış veya TBK m.353 kapsamında yazılı bildirim yapılmamışsa, o taahhüde dayanarak tahliye talep edilemez. Yargıtay, bu süreyi hak düşürücü süre olarak kabul etmektedir.

1 aylık süre içinde icra takibi başlatılmışsa ama dava açılmamışsa ne olur?

Bu durumda hak korunur.
Süresinde başlatılan icra takibi, daha sonra açılacak tahliye davası için süreyi muhafaza eder. Yani 1 ay geçtikten sonra da itirazın kaldırılması veya tahliye davası açılabilir.

Kiracıya sadece ihtarname göndermek süreyi korur mu?

Hayır.
Sadece “tahliye talebi” içeren ihtarnameler tek başına süre koruyucu değildir.
İhtarın, açıkça “tahliye davası açılacağı” iradesini içermesi gerekir veya doğrudan icra takibi başlatılmalıdır. Aksi halde süre kaybı yaşanır.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

While an eviction undertaking is one of the strongest grounds for eviction in practice, it is also one of the areas where the most rights are lost. Especially, incorrect calculation of the 1-month period or performing the wrong action leads to the complete loss of the right to evict.

An expert in Istanbul (Tuzla – Kartal – Pendik – Tepeören) practice

The importance of working with a Tuzla eviction lawyer / Tuzla rental lawyer / Tuzla enforcement lawyer:

📌 Preventing the expiration of the peremptory period

📌 Determining the correct course of action regarding whether to initiate enforcement proceedings or a lawsuit

📌 Preparing a valid and time-preserving notification under TBK 353

📌 Invalidating the tenant’s “contract renewed” defenses

📌 Eliminating the risk of procedural dismissal of the case

📌 The fastest possible enforcement of the eviction order

On the Anatolian Side of Istanbul, especially in the Tuzla – Pendik – Kartal – Tepeören region, enforcement and rental law practices are extremely sensitive to technical details. A single wrong step can set back a process that could take months or even years.👉 2M Law Office,
offers professional legal support, based in Tuzla, in the areas of eviction based on a notarized eviction undertaking,
enforcement proceedings, annulment of objection, forced eviction and rental disputes.