What is the 14 Sample Eviction Order?
Based on the relevant articles of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law mentioned above, the 14 Sample Eviction Order is a legal procedure used by a landlord to evict a tenant from a property. There are many ways to evict a tenant from a leased property.
In this article, we will examine the 14 Sample Eviction Order, which is a type of enforcement proceeding based on documents.
The 14 Sample Eviction Order is a non-judicial enforcement procedure. In this process, initiated with a request for the eviction of the property, the landlord must base the eviction demand on a document. These documents can be a lease agreement or an eviction commitment letter. Besides special provisions established based on the principle of freedom of contract in the lease agreement, the landlord can evict the tenant based on the expiration of the lease term.
The enforcement request must be filed within one month from the end of the lease term specified in the contract. Otherwise, if this forfeiture period is exceeded, the contract is considered extended for one more year, and no eviction request can be made.
Article 272 – (Amended: 3/7/1940 – Law No. 3890, Article 1)
Within one month after the expiration of the term of a leased immovable property under a contract, eviction may be requested by submitting the contract to the enforcement office. Upon this, the enforcement officer shall notify an eviction order and order the eviction and delivery of the property within fifteen days.
In the eviction order:
The names, surnames, and residences of the lessor, lessee, and their representatives (if any), the date of the contract, and if there is an objection regarding the renewal or extension of the lease, it is stated that if the lessee does not declare and object to this by applying to the office within seven days or does not vacate voluntarily, forcible eviction will be carried out.
Article 273 – If no objection is made within the term or if the objection is withdrawn, the leased immovable shall be forcibly evicted and delivered to the lessor at the end of the term. However, the period specified in the eviction order must have elapsed.
If there are any items in the property that do not belong to the lessor, the provisions of Article 26 shall be applied by analogy.
What is a Eviction Commitment Letter?
The eviction commitment letter, which is another document used for the 14-sample eviction request, is considered invalid if it was signed on the same date as the lease agreement, according to Supreme Court decisions. The reason is that the tenant, who wants to rent the property, is regarded as the weaker party at the time of the contract signing and is assumed to have signed this commitment under pressure due to the desire to rent. Therefore, in practice, landlords often have tenants sign the eviction commitment letter without specifying a date, thereby turning the situation in their favor.
Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Law
Case No: 2017/975
Decision No: 2021/1108
Decision Date: 28.09.2021
“… In cases where an eviction commitment, signed by the tenant, contains blank dates at the time of signing the lease agreement, it must be proven that the dates were left blank before the delivery of the leased property and were later filled in contrary to the agreement. The mere fact that the arrangement and eviction dates were filled in later does not invalidate the document; rather, the tenant must prove that these dates were completed contrary to the agreement.
(Kanık, p. 1293).
In light of these explanations, when examining the concrete case; the plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendant was a tenant of the disputed property under a lease agreement starting on 05.03.2010, with a monthly rent of 3,350 TL. The defendant, who had been a tenant for four years, unconditionally accepted in a commitment dated 14.03.2013 that they would vacate the workplace by 04.03.2014. The plaintiff requested a decision for eviction based on this commitment, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the written commitment.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the eviction commitment relied upon in the case was obtained by the plaintiff before the lease agreement was signed. It was also claimed that the commitment, which the plaintiff required as a prerequisite for the use of the property as a tenant, was signed under moral coercion, and thus did not reflect the true will of the parties and was invalid. The defendant’s attorney further alleged bad faith on the part of the plaintiff and requested the dismissal of the case.
However, as previously stated, according to Article 6 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TMK) and Article 190 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK), the burden of proof lies with the party claiming a legal consequence based on the alleged fact. Therefore, the defendant tenant who claims that the eviction commitment was signed before the lease agreement bears the burden of proving this claim…”
Regarding the Issue of Dates Being Filled in Later on the Eviction Commitment
As a general rule, a person who signs a blank document—that is, a paper with an unspecified date—must bear the consequences and is deemed to have accepted the contract as amended. Although it is a mandatory rule that the eviction commitment cannot be signed on a date other than the date the lease agreement was signed, filling in the blank commitment later does not affect the validity of the document.
The Supreme Court’s view is also: “Moreover, the plaintiff did not object to the signature under the eviction commitment and claimed it was given blank. An eviction commitment given while residing in the leased property is valid. Filling in the dates of a signed eviction commitment afterwards does not affect its validity, since a person who signs a blank document must bear the consequences. Therefore, since the commitment is valid and the case was filed within the period, a decision for eviction should have been given. Since a written judgment was given instead, the ruling must be overturned.” (Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 4240E, Decision No. 6339K.)
How to Object to an Eviction Commitment or Lease Agreement?
After receiving the enforcement request, the enforcement officer checks the one-month forfeiture period and the existence of documents, then sends an eviction order to the tenant. This eviction order informs the tenant that they have 15 days to vacate the property; otherwise, they will be forcibly evicted. If the tenant does not object to this eviction order within one week, it is considered accepted, and the eviction becomes final.
If the tenant objects to the enforcement request, the procedure is as follows:
The tenant who receives the eviction order must notify the enforcement office of their objection in writing or verbally within seven days.
In their objection, the debtor may first deny the lease agreement or the eviction commitment. Secondly, they may not deny the lease agreement or eviction commitment but claim that the lease agreement was renewed and the term was extended by the creditor. Thirdly, they may not deny the lease agreement or eviction commitment but claim that the lease agreement is deemed renewed by law.
If the debtor wants to object to the lease agreement or eviction commitment, this objection must be made separately and explicitly.
The debtor’s objection stops the enforcement process. If the creditor wishes to continue the enforcement, they can apply to the competent court—either the Civil Court of Peace or the Enforcement Court—depending on the nature of the objection, to request the removal or cancellation of the objection. The enforcement proceeds according to the court’s decision.
Sample Supreme Court Decisions
Republic of Turkey, Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2008/11
Decision No: 2008/2784
Decision Date: 11.03.2008
“There is no dispute between the parties regarding the lease agreement, which has a start date of 01.09.2003 and a duration of one year, and which forms the basis of both the enforcement proceedings and the lawsuit. The plaintiff initiated enforcement proceedings against the defendant on 22.09.2005 through the Bakırköy 2nd Enforcement Office, file no. 2005/5397, based on the eviction undertaking issued by the defendant on 15.10.2003 with an eviction date of 30.08.2005.
The defendant, who objected to the enforcement proceedings within the legal time frame, claimed that the eviction undertaking was obtained at the time of signing the lease agreement and was therefore invalid, and repeated this objection during the trial. Although the defendant argued that the eviction undertaking was obtained during the execution of the lease agreement and that the date of issue was filled in later, he acknowledged in the undertaking—whose signature he did not deny—that he was residing in the apartment belonging to the plaintiff, which he was currently leasing and occupying, and that he gave the eviction undertaking while living in the leased property.
Moreover, the signature binds the signing tenant, and therefore, the objection that the dates in the document were later filled in cannot be accepted. Even if it is accepted that the date of issue in the undertaking was left blank and later handed over to the plaintiff, the defendant tenant must bear the consequences of such behavior. The fact that the issue date was later completed has no impact on the result. Since the proceedings were initiated and the lawsuit was filed within the time limit, it must be accepted that the eviction undertaking given while residing in the property of free will is valid, and a decision for eviction should have been issued accordingly. Therefore, the written ruling is found to be incorrect and must be overturned.”
DECISION:
For the reasons explained above, the appeal objections are accepted and the judgment is OVERTURNED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK), and, upon request, the appeal fee paid in advance shall be returned to the appellant. This decision was made unanimously on 11.03.2008.
Republic of Turkey, Court of Cassation, 8th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2017/392, Decision No: 2017/818, Date: 30.01.2017
The eviction undertaking that forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings was neither issued nor certified by a notary public. According to Article 275 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) and the Supreme Court Unification of Judgments Decision dated 04.12.1957, numbered 11/26, the creditor cannot request the removal of the objection based on an eviction undertaking whose date is disputed, even if the signature is admitted. Therefore, resolving the dispute requires judicial proceedings.
In the present case, since the defendant tenant has objected to the date of issuance, and considering that the dispute requires judicial review, a decision should have been made to reject the request for removal of the objection. It was incorrect to issue a written decision on lifting the objection and ordering the eviction of the leased property.
Views: 0
