Legal Consequences of a Conditional Eviction Undertaking in Light of Supreme Court Decisions

1. General Legal Framework and Validity Conditions

 According to Supreme Court precedents, eviction undertakings made subject to a condition are, in principle, considered valid under Article 149 of the abrogated Code of Obligations and Article 170 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) No. 6098. According to the established view of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (e.g., 2015/11188 E., 2010/11371 E.), an eviction undertaking can be made conditional upon the fulfillment of a condition, and in this case, the undertaking gains “currency” upon the fulfillment of the condition. However, for an eviction undertaking to be valid, it must contain the following essential elements:

Must Be in Writing: It is a legal requirement for the undertaking to be made in writing.

Free Will and Timing: The undertaking must be given with free will after the lease agreement is made, while the tenant is residing in the leased property. Undertakings given on the same date as the lease agreement or before the leased property has been delivered are considered invalid, as they are deemed to have been given under duress (the tenant being in distress) (8. Civil Chamber 2017/5598 E., General Assembly of Civil Chambers 2017/975 E. ).

Specific or Determinable Date: The undertaking must contain a clear, explicit, and definite date. Undertakings that do not contain a specific date or that include vague expressions such as “at the end of the lease term” are not considered valid eviction undertakings under Article 352 of the TCO (Turkish Code of Obligations) (12th Civil Chamber 2020/1175 E. Source, 6th Civil Chamber 2007/6086 E. Source).

2. Examples of Conditional Eviction Undertakings and Supreme Court Analysis

A. Condition of Non-Payment of Rent 

The 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2015/11188 E., 2016/839 K.), has found undertakings valid where the tenant declared they would pay their accumulated rent debt on a specific date, and if they failed to do so, they would vacate the property. In this case, if the tenant cannot document that payment was made, the condition is considered fulfilled, and the undertaking becomes valid. However, general clauses merely stating that “the contract shall be deemed terminated if payment is not made” are not classified as an eviction undertaking unless they contain a clear intention to evict (6th Civil Chamber 2009/10286 E.).

B. Zoning Plan Change and Administrative Conditions 

Administrative conditions regarding a change in the property’s intended use can also constitute a valid ground for eviction. The 6th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2010/11371 E. ), has deemed an eviction undertaking valid that was conditioned on the property becoming suitable for a gas station due to a zoning plan change. In this case, once the condition is met, the promised date is considered to have become definite.

C. Public Projects and Necessity Condition 

Commitments for eviction “when needed” within the scope of public projects like Marmaray, if made with free will, are binding on the parties (6th Civil Chamber 2010/4392 E.. However, in such commitments, it is mandatory to file a lawsuit or initiate enforcement proceedings within one month from the notice indicating the fulfillment of the condition.

D. Condition of Mutual Performance (Payment Condition)

 In commitments conditional on the lessor making a certain payment to the lessee, if the lessor fails to fulfill their payment obligation, the commitment becomes invalid (6th Civil Chamber 2009/10107 E. Source).

3. Reasons for Invalidity and Limitations

Uncertainty: Expressions such as “when needed by the institution” or “a tender will be issued when the 10-year period expires” do not grant a right to eviction on their own unless they contain a specific and definite date (6th Civil Chamber 2013/13665 E. , 3rd Civil Chamber 2025/283 E. S).

Statute of Limitations: Even if the condition is fulfilled, failure to initiate enforcement proceedings or a lawsuit within one month from the eviction date (or the date the condition was fulfilled) renders the commitment unusable (8th Civil Chamber 2017/4711 E. S).

Contractual Penal Clauses: Penal clauses agreed upon based on an invalid eviction commitment (e.g., given simultaneously with the lease agreement) are also invalid (8th Civil Chamber 2017/5598 E. Source).

4. Secondary Sources and Additional Context 

Decisions qualifying as secondary sources provide the following additional information regarding the procedural validity of eviction undertakings, beyond the claim of conditionality:

Notary Approval and Proof: Undertakings drawn up ex officio by a notary or with a verified signature constitute strong evidence pursuant to Article 275/2 of the EBL. The tenant can only prove the contrary of this undertaking with a document of equal strength (6th Civil Chamber 2012/4203 E.).

Interaction with New Contract: If a new lease agreement is signed after the eviction undertaking is given, covering the promised date, the previous eviction undertaking becomes invalid (6th Civil Chamber 2012/9893 E. ). However, if a clear eviction date is written into the renewed contract (in the special conditions section), this clause can be considered a valid eviction undertaking (6th Civil Chamber 2015/5771 E.).

Declaration of Will: The tenant’s statement in the undertaking “I am currently the tenant of,” constitutes a presumption that the undertaking was given while the lease relationship was ongoing and with free will (6th Civil Chamber 2013/12792 E. ).

Jurisdiction of the Enforcement Court: It is emphasized that complex legal disputes regarding the claim of conditionality or whether the condition has been met should be heard in general courts, not in enforcement courts with limited jurisdiction (12th Civil Chamber 2023/459 E.).

Conclusion: According to the Supreme Court’s practice, conditional eviction undertakings are valid provided they are in writing, given after the lease relationship is established, and the date becomes definite/determinable upon the fulfillment of the condition. In cases where the condition is not met or the undertaking does not contain a specific date, the request for eviction is rejected.

Tahliye taahhüdü bir şarta bağlanabilir mi?

Evet. Yargıtay’a göre tahliye taahhüdü bir şartın gerçekleşmesine bağlanabilir. Ancak bu durumda: Şart objektif ve ispatlanabilir olmalı,
Şart gerçekleştiğinde tahliye tarihi belirli veya belirlenebilir hale gelmelidir. Aksi hâlde taahhüt, TBK 352 kapsamında geçerli sayılmaz.

“Kira borcu ödenmezse tahliye ederim” şeklindeki taahhüt geçerli midir?

Evet, açık bir tahliye iradesi içeriyorsa geçerlidir. Kiracı belirlenen tarihte borcu ödemezse şart gerçekleşmiş sayılır ve tahliye taahhüdü güncellik kazanır. Ancak yalnızca “Ödeme yapılmazsa sözleşme feshedilmiş sayılır” şeklindeki ifadeler tahliye taahhüdü olarak kabul edilmez.

Şart gerçekleşti ama dava geç açıldıysa ne olur?

Tahliye hakkı tamamen düşer. Şart gerçekleştiği anda: Tahliye tarihi oluşmuş kabul edilir. Bu tarihten itibaren 1 ay içinde icra takibi veya tahliye davası açılmalıdır. Bu süre hak düşürücüdür ve hiçbir şekilde uzatılamaz.

“İhtiyaç olursa tahliye edilecektir” şeklindeki taahhüt geçerli mi?

Genellikle hayır. “İhtiyaç duyulduğunda”, “ileride gerekirse”, “ihaleye çıkılması halinde” gibi ifadeler; Belirsiz, Muğlak, Takdiri unsurlara bağlı
olduğu için tek başına tahliye hakkı vermez.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

Conditional eviction undertakings are much riskier than classic eviction undertakings. The most common problems encountered in practice are:

The condition not being considered legally valid

The condition’s fulfillment not being able to be proven

The eviction date being considered uncertain

Missing the 1-month forfeiture period

Choosing the wrong authority (enforcement court / general court)

In Supreme Court practice, a small wording error in conditional undertakings can make eviction impossible for years. For this reason, before initiating an enforcement proceeding or lawsuit based on a conditional eviction undertaking in the regions of Istanbul – Tuzla – Kartal – Pendik – Tepeören – Gebze – Çayırova, it is vitally important that the document be reviewed by an expert lawyer. 2M Law Office aims to eliminate the risk of loss of rights by managing the process with a strategy compliant with Supreme Court precedents in the field of eviction undertakings and rental law.