“I renovated the kitchen, I’m not paying this month’s rent” or “I will deduct the painting and whitewashing expenses from the rent” are among the most common sources of rent disputes. Is it legally possible for the tenant to unilaterally deduct the renovation costs incurred in the leased property from the rent? Can a landlord who holds an eviction undertaking rely on a document with a blank date section to secure eviction? In this article, we examine the issue of unauthorized renovation–offset, the validity of eviction undertakings, and the eviction process due to default, in light of current Supreme Court precedents and the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO).

Can the Tenant Unilaterally Deduct Renovation Costs from Rent?

Short answer: No. According to TCO art. 321, the tenant can only make improvements and alterations to the leased property with the landlord’s written consent. Renovations made without written permission constitute a breach of the obligation to use with care and in accordance with the contract, as per TCO art. 316.

More importantly, rent debt and renovation claims are two independent relationships. The tenant cannot unilaterally underpay the rent by saying, “I incurred expenses.” Unless there is an explicit provision in the contract stating that renovation costs will be deducted from the rent, or a written agreement between the parties to that effect, the tenant does not have the right to unilateral offset. Otherwise, such behavior would put the tenant in default and could constitute grounds for eviction.

In the enforcement proceedings stage, the situation is even clearer: If the tenant wishes to offset the repair expenses incurred against the rent debt, they must prove that these repairs were made with the landlord’s consent, using the documents specified in EPL Art. 269/c (a notarized/approved document or the landlord’s acknowledgment). Invoices, witnesses, or ordinary correspondence are not considered sufficient for offsetting at this stage.

Exceptions: Defect, Written Permission, and “Adoption”

There are some exceptions to the rule, and it is necessary to distinguish them correctly:

Mandatory expenses arising from defects (TCO Art. 306): If there is a defect in the leased property that significantly impedes its use (e.g., a serious plumbing fault, water leak) and the landlord does not remedy the defect within the reasonable time granted, the tenant may remedy the defect at the landlord’s expense and deduct the cost from the rent. This is a narrow and conditional exception; it does not cover every renovation.

Beneficial/mandatory expenses incurred with written consent: In innovations and alterations made with the landlord’s written consent, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, the landlord cannot demand restoration to the original state.

Reimbursement of useful and necessary expenses (unauthorized agency / negotiorum gestio): According to the Supreme Court’s practice, the tenant can claim the cost of the useful and necessary expenses made to the leased property that are adopted by the lessor, in accordance with the provisions of unauthorized agency (negotiorum gestio) under Article 526 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO). However, this claim is, as a rule, made after the lease agreement has ended and the property has been vacated, and through a lawsuit; it is not a unilateral set-off during the continuation of the lease (see. Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2017/7043, K. 2019/3365).

Implied adoption: If the lessor has adopted the unauthorized alterations made, without requesting their restoration to their original state after eviction, a discussion regarding unjust enrichment/unauthorized agency may arise concerning useful and necessary alterations. However, luxury expenditures, removable fixtures, and unapproved alterations are not evaluated within this scope (see. Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2022/6869, K. 2022/9652). In other words, simply saying “I beautified the house” is not sufficient on its own.

In summary: The tenant may have a claim for useful/necessary expenses; but this does not grant a unilateral right to set off rent. The claim is calculated after eviction, through a lawsuit and expert examination (by deducting depreciation and based on the fair market value at the time of construction).

Underpayment Constitutes Default, Default is a Ground for Eviction

Rent payments that the tenant underpays under the name of “renovation deduction” constitute default unless proven with a valid document within the scope of Article 269/c of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL). The eviction process due to default works as follows:

Eviction proceedings without judgment (Sample No: 13): The landlord initiates proceedings by requesting both accrued rent and eviction due to default (Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 315).

30-day payment period: If the entire debt is not paid within the 30-day period granted to the tenant from the notification of the payment order, the tenant will be in default. Default cannot be mentioned before this period expires.

Removal of objection and eviction: If payment is not made within the period, the landlord requests the removal of the objection and eviction from the enforcement court within the legal period. The tenant’s “renovation offset” defense will be rejected if it cannot be proven with documents under Article 269/c of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

Alternative Method: Eviction Undertaking

If the landlord has a valid eviction undertaking, eviction can also be secured based on this document, independently of the default process. According to TBK Art. 352/1, if the tenant, after the delivery of the leased property, undertakes in writing to vacate it on a certain date but fails to do so, the landlord may initiate enforcement proceedings or file an eviction lawsuit within one month starting from that date.

Key conditions to consider for validity:

Must be drawn up after the delivery of the leased property: An eviction undertaking taken on the same date as the lease agreement is not considered valid, as it is deemed not to be based on free will in accordance with the Decision on Unification of Jurisprudence. However, an undertaking taken after the lease relationship is established is considered the product of the tenant’s free will. Phrases such as “I am currently the tenant of” constitute a presumption that the undertaking was given during the lease relationship.

There must be a clear eviction date: A specific (or determinable) eviction date in day/month/year format is mandatory. If the eviction date is uncertain, the undertaking does not produce any legal effect.

The tenant’s signature must be present: If there is more than one tenant, each of their signatures is required.

So, is an undertaking with a blank date section valid? According to the consistent jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, if the tenant has signed a blank paper/undated undertaking, as a rule, they bear the consequences of this action; the burden of proving the claim that the document was filled out contrary to the agreement with written evidence of equal strength lies with the tenant. Indeed, in the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 28.09.2021, numbered E. 2017/975, K. 2021/1108, it was emphasized that an undertaking signed with blank dates and later completed cannot be deemed invalid for this reason, and that the claim of it being filled out contrary to the agreement must be proven by the tenant. The tenant’s continued payment of rent also does not alone invalidate the undertaking.

Practical warning: In ordinary written (not notarized) undertakings, if the tenant explicitly objects to the creation date, the dispute may exceed the narrow jurisdiction of the enforcement court and necessitate a trial. Therefore, properly preparing the undertaking from the start and, if possible, having it notarized is of great importance for evidentiary purposes.

Roadmap for Landlords

Collection of Documents: The rental agreement, payment receipts, written permission/protocol if any, and eviction undertaking are gathered.

Eviction proceeding without a judgment (Example 13): Rental arrears + eviction due to default are requested together.

Monitoring the 30-day period: If the tenant does not pay, the default becomes final.

Eviction + annulment of objection in the Enforcement Court: If the defense of renovation offset cannot be proven with documents per ELA Art. 269/c, it will be rejected.

Alternative: Enforcement based on an undertaking: If there is a valid eviction undertaking, enforcement/litigation proceedings must be initiated within one month from its date.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Can the tenant deduct renovations made from the rent? They cannot deduct unilaterally. Rental debt and renovation receivables are independent. Unless there is an explicit provision in the contract or a written offset agreement, partial payment puts the tenant in default.

2. Can a tenant who makes unauthorized renovations be evicted? Substantial changes made without written permission constitute a breach of TCO Art. 316. The landlord may request the rectification of the breach with a written warning giving at least 30 days; otherwise, they may proceed with termination and eviction.

3. Can the tenant not recover their expenses at all? They can; however, as a rule, not through unilateral offset while the lease continues, but through litigation after eviction. The cost of beneficial and necessary improvements adopted by the landlord can be claimed after deducting the wear and tear allowance.

4. Is an eviction undertaking signed with a blank date section valid? According to the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, it is generally valid; the burden of proving that it was filled out contrary to the agreement lies with the tenant. If the tenant explicitly objects to the date of execution, the dispute may require litigation.

5. Is an eviction undertaking obtained on the same day as the lease agreement valid? No. An undertaking obtained on the same date as the lease agreement is considered invalid because it is assumed not to be based on free will. The undertaking must be obtained after the delivery of the leased property.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Renovation-offset and eviction disputes are technical areas where a single wrong step (e.g., choosing the wrong type of enforcement, an incomplete claim item, or relying on an invalid undertaking) can lead the entire process to a deadlock. The narrow evidence regime of Article 269/c of the EBL (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law), the subtle distinctions between Articles 321/316/306 of the TCO (Turkish Code of Obligations), and the validity conditions of an eviction undertaking require expertise and keeping up with current case law. For the lessor, correctly managing the default process, and for the lessee, properly asserting defenses related to beneficial expenses and vitiated consent, are of vital importance.

2M Law Firm, operating on the Istanbul Anatolian Side and Kocaeli line; primarily in Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, and Gebze, provides legal support to lessors and lessees in matters of lease law, unauthorized renovation disputes, evictions based on undertakings, evictions due to default, and enforcement proceedings. To avoid loss of rights, it is important to work with an expert lawyer from the contract stage to eviction.

Our Related Articles

Resources and Useful Links