Introduction

An eviction lawsuit due to necessity is a legal recourse initiated to ensure the eviction of a tenant when the property owner or their close relatives, as defined by law, require the rented immovable property as a residence or workplace. The Supreme Court (Yargıtay) and Regional Courts of Justice (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) decisions examined show that winning such a lawsuit requires much more than a simple declaration of need, depending on a series of critical substantive and procedural dynamics. This study aims to outline the fundamental conditions, burdens of proof, and evaluation criteria of the courts for winning an eviction lawsuit due to necessity, in light of the judicial decisions presented. The study comprehensively analyzes which conditions plaintiffs (landlords) must meet to achieve success.

1. Nature of the Need: The “Real, Sincere, and Compulsory” Condition

The most fundamental principle recurring in almost all decisions is that the need underlying the eviction request must be “real, sincere, and mandatory”. The judiciary does not consider abstract and temporary demands sufficient for eviction.

Real and Mandatory Need: According to the Supreme Court, “A temporary need that is not continuous cannot be a reason for eviction, just as a need that has not yet arisen or is dependent on a long period for its realization cannot be accepted as a reason for eviction.” (E.g.: Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber – 2014/13898). For example, the plaintiff’s intention to settle in another city after retirement not yet having materialized on the date of the lawsuit, led to the need being considered “not yet arisen” (Regional Court of Appeals – Antalya 6th Civil Chamber – 2020/462).

Sincerity: Courts evaluate the sincerity of the need with various factors. While the plaintiff having another vacant property of the same nature may undermine sincerity, the plaintiff themselves living in a rented property is generally considered the strongest evidence of sincerity. As stated in the Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber’s decision numbered 2018/1050, in cases based on housing need “the fact that the plaintiff is living in a rented property is established by the case file” and this situation “is sufficient for the existence of the need.”

2. Continuity of Need Requirement

It is not enough for the need to exist only at the time the lawsuit is filed; this need must continue throughout the trial. This rule is consistently emphasized by the Court of Cassation: “It is not sufficient for the reason for the need to exist on the date the lawsuit was filed; this need must also continue during the trial.” (e.g., Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber – 2017/9396).

The sale of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit during the trial is the clearest example of this principle. In the decision numbered 2010/1784 of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was stated that with the sale of the immovable property during the trial, “the reason for the need of the lawsuit has also ceased to exist. It can no longer be said that the claim of need is genuine and sincere.“ and therefore the case should be dismissed due to becoming moot.

3. Persons Entitled to Sue and Those in Need

The law has limited for whose need a lawsuit can be filed. Failure to comply with this limitation leads to the dismissal of the lawsuit due to lack of standing.

Persons Who Can File a Lawsuit: According to Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), the right to sue; “can be exercised for the need of the lessor, their spouse, descendants, ascendants, or other persons whom they are legally obliged to support.“ The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation also confirmed this rule, stating that, “the right to sue generally belongs to the lessor” but “it has been jurisprudentially accepted that an owner who is not in the position of a lessor can also file these lawsuits” (HGK – 2007/31).

Limited Number of Beneficiaries: This limitation is strictly enforced. For instance, in one case, a plaintiff’s lawsuit for the needs of their nephew was not accepted (Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber – 2010/4516). Similarly, it has been stated that a limited company cannot file a lawsuit for the personal needs of its partner, outside of its own corporate entity’s needs: “A limited company with legal personality can also only file a lawsuit for its own needs.” (Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber – 2015/7742).

4. Procedural Requirements and Burden of Proof for Eviction Lawsuit Due to Necessity

Adherence to procedural rules is as vital as the merits of the case for winning the lawsuit. Missing deadlines or failing to present evidence properly can lead to the rejection of even a legitimate need.

Time Limits for Filing a Lawsuit: Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations clearly defines the time limit for filing a lawsuit: “…in fixed-term contracts, at the end of the term, and in indefinite-term contracts, … it must be filed within one month starting from the date determined by adhering to the notice periods stipulated for termination.” (Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber – 2015/7848). Failure to comply with these deadlines leads to the dismissal of the lawsuit without examining its merits.

Requirement of Notice for the New Owner: For the new owner to file a lawsuit based on Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), “provided that the situation is notified to the tenant in writing within one month from the date of acquisition, the lease agreement can be terminated with a lawsuit to be filed six months later.” (Regional Court of Appeals – Bursa 4th Civil Chamber – 2022/580). Missing the one-month notice period extinguishes this right.

Burden of Proof and Evidence: The burden of proving the existence of the need rests with the plaintiff. Among the evidence are witness statements, documents showing that the plaintiff lives in a rented property, projects related to the intended work, and especially in cases of workplace need, on-site inspection and expert examination play a critical role in determining the suitability of the property. It has been frequently emphasized that the court “must make a decision on the merits of the case based on the collected evidence regarding the need,” and failure to do so would be considered an incomplete examination (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber – 2013/3476).

5. Nature of the Immovable Property and Primacy of Property Rights

Suitability of the Immovable Property: The alleged need must be compatible with the characteristics of the immovable property in question. The rejection of a lawsuit based on the need to use a property registered as “residential” in the title deed as a “marble workshop” (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber – 2013/5553) is an example of this situation. In cases of workplace need, it must be determined by an expert whether the leased property is suitable and appropriate for the intended work.

Priority of Property Rights and Right of Choice: The fact that the plaintiff owns other properties does not mean that the need is not genuine. Especially if these properties are occupied or not suitable for the need, the owner’s right of ownership is given precedence. As stated in the decision numbered 2007/531 of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation,  “the plaintiff owner has the right to reside in any of these apartments as they wish and, consequently, to demand the eviction of any rented property they wish.”

Conclusion

A holistic analysis of the decisions shows that eviction lawsuits based on need rest on two main pillars:  Substantive Conditions (Merits)  and Formal Conditions (Procedure). At the core of the substantive conditions is the requirement that the need be  “real, genuine, necessary, and continuous”  ; while formal conditions encompass strict adherence to the lawsuit filing and notice periods stipulated by law, and filing the lawsuit against the correct person.

The Court of Cassation, while protecting property rights and recognizing the owner’s right to reside or conduct business in their own property, has also established a high standard of proof to protect tenants against arbitrary eviction demands. The established jurisprudence,  “renting is a presumption of need,”  stands out as an important factor lightening the plaintiff’s burden of proof. In contrast, the burden of proof is heavier in cases based on business premises needs. Courts typically conduct a “comparative survey” between the existing business premises and the location for which eviction is sought, investigating whether the new location is  superior to or at least equivalent in quality to the existing one  (Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber – 2013/9381).

Another point that stands out in the decisions is the courts’ obligation to write reasoned decisions. In decisions referring to Constitutional Law Article 141 and HMK Article 297, it has been emphasized that the court cannot merely state “there is a need”; it must clearly state on which evidence it based this conclusion, how it evaluated the evidence, and its legal grounds (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber – 2014/5615).

In conclusion, the landlord should know that merely owning the property does not automatically grant them the right to eviction. Success depends on the ability to demonstrate the credibility of the need with concrete evidence and to complete legal procedures fully. An article suggestion.

Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

Eviction cases due to need are not cases that can be filed and won merely by a declaration of need. The fact that the case is subject to strict conditions regarding both its merits and procedure makes the support of a lawyer specializing in rental law essential. Many technical details, such as the period for filing a lawsuit, the warning requirement, the burden of proof, and compliance with local court precedents, can complicate the process for the landlord.

At this point, Tuzla lawyer support offers a critical service that is not limited to merely filing a lawsuit, but ranges from evidence preparation to determining the litigation strategy. Furthermore, filing the lawsuit in court on behalf of the correct person, within the correct timeframes, and with complete documentation, are factors that directly affect the outcome of the case.

Legal professionals with local experience, such as lawyers from Tepeören, Çayırova, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Aydınlı, Orhanlı, and Gebze, possess the ability to conduct lawsuits in a manner consistent with regional expert witness practices and precedents, especially those who are aware of the differences in practice around the Istanbul Anatolian Courthouse. This enables property owners to both assert their legal rights in the strongest possible way and prevent potential loss of rights.

It should be noted that eviction lawsuits due to necessity can lead to consequences such as the inability to re-rent the property for a certain period (prohibition of usufruct) even if the tenant is ordered to be evicted. Therefore, such cases should be managed in a planned and legally compliant manner from the outset.