Introduction

This study examines, in light of presented Supreme Court decisions, the question of whether a person who uses an independent section of a main property as a tenant, despite not being a flat owner, can file a lawsuit in the civil court of peace for the annulment of homeowners’ board (KMK) decisions regarding common expenses and dues. According to Condominium Law No. 634 (KMK), the right to file a lawsuit for the annulment of KMK decisions generally belongs to the flat owners. However, the legal status of tenants who are directly affected by these decisions and are obliged to pay debts such as dues has been subjected to a special evaluation in Supreme Court precedents. This study aims to reveal the Supreme Court’s approach to the issue, as well as the existence and limits of this right.

When the examined Supreme Court decisions are evaluated holistically, it is observed that a well-established precedent has been formed in the Supreme Court’s practice, stating that even if a tenant does not have voting rights in the homeowners’ board meeting, they can file a lawsuit for the annulment of KMK decisions that directly incur debt for them, such as dues, and affect their legal interests. This right is not absolute and unlimited, and two fundamental conditions stand out for the lawsuit to be filed:

a) Recognition of the tenant’s right to file a lawsuit and its rationale

The decisions of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals contain precedents that most clearly demonstrate the tenant’s right to sue. The fundamental basis of this right is the principle that the tenant is directly affected** by the decision and has a **“legal interest”**. The 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals (2017/2245 E., 2018/1086 K.) justified this situation as follows: “…it was justified by the plaintiff’s legal interest in filing a lawsuit, due to the fact that decisions regarding common expenses and maintenance fee obligations as a tenant and user concern the plaintiff’s legal rights and create an obligation for the plaintiff in terms of the rent amount.”** This decision overturned the local court’s dismissal of the case on the grounds that “the plaintiff is not the owner of the independent unit”** thereby explicitly recognizing the tenant’s legal standing to sue. Similarly, the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals (2019/3269 E., 2019/6235 K.) states that this right is not limited to tenants but also includes individuals who continuously benefit from an independent section based on another reason, such as the right of residence (usufruct).

b) Limits and conditions of the right to sue

Although the tenant’s right to sue is recognized, this right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court of Appeals emphasizes that for this right to be exercised, the decision must affect the tenant “directly”** and in terms of a **“specific interest”**.

In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2009/437 E., 2009/6152 K.), this limit was clearly drawn: “the active legal standing of those who continuously benefit from independent sections in the main building based on a lease agreement or another legal reason, in such lawsuits, only exists if the relevant board decision directly concerns them.“

Again, in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2019/3269 E., 2019/6235 K.), this situation was expressed as follows: “For these individuals to file a lawsuit against the board of apartment owners, the decision taken must relate to a special interest and directly harm their rights and benefits.” These decisions indicate that a tenant can file a lawsuit not against every decision related to the general management of the apartment building, but only against specific decisions that affect their legal and financial situation, such as maintenance fees or common area usage.

c)Necessity of examining the merits of the case

The Court of Cassation, having accepted the tenant’s legal standing to sue, states that instead of dismissing the case due to lack of standing, courts should examine the merits of the case. In this examination, it was emphasized that an assessment should be made within the framework of the legal basis of the maintenance fees, the management plan, and the provisions of the Apartment Ownership Law (KMK).

In the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2017/2405 E., 2018/2562 K.), the court’s deeming it a ground for reversal that “…it was not investigated whether the basis of the debt is a due/management fee debt, whether it covers maintenance, repair, or renovation expenses related to common areas, and whether the said expenses are permanent expenses for the independent section or solely related to due/management fees, and a judgment was not rendered accordingly” is a good example of this situation.

Conclusion

As a result of the analysis of the presented Supreme Court decisions, it has been concluded that the Supreme Court, within the framework of its modern understanding of law and the principle of ‘legal interest,’ recognizes the right of tenants to file lawsuits against decisions of the homeowners’ board that put them in debt. In summary, a tenant can file an annulment lawsuit against homeowners’ association decisions that determine or increase the management fee, claiming that these decisions are unlawful. Bu for this right to be exercised, it is essential that the decision directly and negatively affects the tenant’s financial and legal situation. The tenant’s right to sue is narrower than the homeowner’s general right to sue and is limited only to decisions concerning their own interests. A recommended article.

Courts, by accepting the tenant’s legal capacity in such cases, must delve into the merits of the case and scrutinize whether the decisions of the Condominium Law (KMK) are in accordance with the law, the management plan, and the mandatory provisions of the law. In this regard, the phrase stated in the title, “In Supreme Court practice, it has been established that a person benefiting from an independent section of the main property due to a lease relationship can file a lawsuit for annulment in the civil court of peace concerning a decision made by the condominium owners regarding common charges debt” is confirmed by the jurisprudences examined.

Why is Expert Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

Common charge disputes frequently arise between tenants and site managements in residential areas such as Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, Orhanlı, Aydınlı, Çayırova, and Tepeören. Should these disputes escalate to legal proceedings, it is of great importance for tenants to receive professional support from a Tuzla lawyer specializing in condominium law to prevent loss of rights and to effectively exercise their right to file a lawsuit.

Expert lawyer support is necessary for the following reasons: Evaluation of the legal basis of the common charge decision, Proper establishment of the tenant’s legal capacity to file a lawsuit, Technical analysis of the common charge items subject to the lawsuit, Interpretation of the management plan and support with jurisprudence, if necessary, Conducting annulment lawsuits filed due to high common charges in accordance with proper procedure.

A wrongly conducted lawsuit may be dismissed on grounds of legal capacity or concluded without addressing the merits of the case. This not only creates a grievance for the tenant but also incurs additional financial burden in terms of litigation costs.

Therefore, especially in residential areas in and around Istanbul Tuzla, in case of disputes related to maintenance fees, consulting an experienced lawyer in the field for the resolution of the problem ensures both the healthy progress of the legal process and the full protection of rights.