Eviction Due to the New Owner’s Need - Ataşehir Lease Lawyer

Eviction Due to the New Owner’s Need - Ataşehir Lease Lawyer An eviction action based on the new owner's need is one of the eviction remedies regulated under Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. A person who subsequently acquires the leased property and, as a rule, becomes the owner following registration in the land registry may seek eviction where the property is required as a residence or workplace for themselves, their spouse, descendants, ascendants or persons whom they are legally obliged to support, provided that the conditions explained in the law and the source are satisfied. The new owner cannot obtain eviction merely because the property has been purchased. The source particularly emphasises that the need must be genuine, sincere and necessary, that statutory notice and filing periods must be observed and that the alleged need must be proven. For this reason, in matters involving an Ataşehir lease lawyer, Istanbul lease lawyer, Ümraniye lease lawyer, Üsküdar lease lawyer or Çekmeköy lease lawyer, disputes based on the new owner's need should be assessed by considering not only the transfer of title but also the acquisition date, notice to the tenant, the nature of the need, the commencement and expiry dates of the lease agreement and the filing period. What Is an Eviction Action Based on the New Owner’s Need? An eviction action based on the new owner's need is a legal remedy through which a person who subsequently acquires the leased property may request eviction where a genuine residential or workplace need exists for one of the persons specified by law. According to the source, the new owner may rely on a need relating to: The new owner, The new owner's spouse, Descendants, Ascendants, Persons whom the new owner is legally obliged to support. However, acquisition of ownership alone is not sufficient for an eviction order. What Does Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations Regulate? According to the uploaded source, Article 351 regulates termination of the lease agreement due to the need of a person who subsequently acquires the leased property. The new owner may, provided that written notice is given to the tenant within one month from acquisition, file an eviction action based on need after six months have passed from the acquisition date. The source also explains that the new owner may alternatively rely on the duration of the lease agreement between the former owner and the tenant and file an action at the end of the contractual period. Can the New Owner Evict the Tenant Immediately After Purchasing the Property? No. The source expressly states that acquisition of the leased property by the new owner is not, by itself, a ground for eviction. The new owner must also have and prove a genuine residential or workplace need concerning one of the persons specified by law. For Whose Need May the New Owner Seek Eviction? According to the source, the new owner may rely on a need relating to: The new owner, Their spouse, Descendants, Ascendants, Persons whom they are legally obliged to support. Accordingly, the claimed need does not necessarily have to concern only the personal use of the new owner. However, the person for whom the need is claimed must fall within the categories identified in the source and the law. Can the New Owner File an Eviction Action Based on Residential Need? Yes. The source states that the new owner may bring an eviction action where there is a residential need for the owner or one of the persons specified by law. However, the need must be genuine, sincere and necessary. A temporary or not-yet-existing need is not accepted as sufficient for eviction in the source. Can the New Owner File an Eviction Action Based on Workplace Need? Yes. The new owner may also bring an eviction action where there is a genuine and necessary workplace need for one of the persons identified in the source. Regarding workplace need, the source particularly notes that circumstances such as the new owner currently conducting business in a rented property, being under threat of eviction or the acquired property being more suitable or at least equivalent to the existing workplace may be relevant. Must the New Owner’s Need Be Genuine? Yes. The source expressly states that an eviction order based on need requires proof that the need is genuine, sincere and necessary. The Court of Cassation decision cited in the source further states that a temporary need lacking continuity cannot constitute a ground for eviction. What Does a Sincere Need Mean? According to the source, the alleged need must not merely be an apparent justification advanced for the purpose of bringing an eviction action. The need must be: Genuine, Sincere, Necessary. The court assesses this issue according to the evidence and circumstances of the particular case. Can a Temporary Need Constitute a Ground for Eviction? No. According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, a temporary need that does not demonstrate continuity cannot constitute a ground for eviction. The alleged need must therefore possess a degree of continuity. Can a Future Need That Has Not Yet Arisen Be a Ground for Eviction? According to the source, no. A need that has not yet arisen or whose realisation depends on a long future period is not accepted as a ground for eviction. The need must therefore actually exist during the proceedings. Must the Need Exist When the Action Is Filed? Yes. According to the Court of Cassation decision included in the source, it is not sufficient for the need merely to exist on the filing date; it must continue throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, disappearance of the need while the proceedings are pending may affect the legal assessment. Must the New Owner Send a Formal Notice to the Tenant? Where the new owner relies on the six-month procedure under Article 351, the source states that written notice must be given to the tenant within one month from acquisition. The source refers particularly to a notarial notice and states that the notice must be served on the tenant. What Is the Time Limit for the Notice? According to the source, written notice must be given within one month from the acquisition date. The Court of Cassation decision cited in the source states that the one-month period begins from the acquisition date, including the day of acquisition. Is Merely Sending the Notice Sufficient? According to the source, merely preparing or sending the notice is not sufficient. The written notification must be served on the tenant. The source particularly emphasises that service of the notice within the one-month period following acquisition is mandatory. The date of service is therefore also important. Can Failure to Give Notice Within One Month Be Corrected Later? According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, service of the notice within one month following acquisition is mandatory and the failure cannot later be remedied. The new owner should therefore carefully monitor the acquisition date and notice period when relying on Article 351. When Can the New Owner File the Eviction Action? According to the source, after giving written notice within one month from acquisition, the new owner may file an eviction action after six months have passed from the acquisition date. The source further states that the action does not have to be filed immediately at the end of the six-month period and may be filed until the end of the lease term. Can the Eviction Action Be Filed Before Six Months Have Passed? The source states that under Article 351 the new owner may bring the action after six months have passed from the acquisition date. The six-month period is therefore important in relation to the procedure described in the source. Must the Action Be Filed Immediately When the Six-Month Period Expires? No. According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, the action does not have to be filed immediately at the end of the six-month period. It may be filed until the end of the contractual term. The existing duration of the lease agreement should therefore also be considered. Can the New Owner Wait Until the End of the Lease Agreement? Yes. According to the source, the new owner may alternatively rely on the lease agreement made between the former owner and the tenant and file an eviction action within one month after the end of the contractual period. Alternatively, the new owner may use the one-month notice and six-month waiting procedure under Article 351. Does the New Owner Have Two Different Routes to Eviction? According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, the new owner may use either of two routes: Rely on the duration of the lease agreement between the former owner and the tenant and file the action at the end of the term, Give written notice within one month from acquisition under Article 351 and file the action after six months. The appropriate route should be assessed according to the duration of the lease agreement and the circumstances of the case. Does the Court Examine the Filing Period on Its Own Initiative? Yes. According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, the filing period concerns public order in eviction actions based on the new owner's need. The court must therefore examine whether the action was filed on time even if the tenant does not raise a limitation objection. Why Is the Commencement Date of the Lease Agreement Important? The source states that determining whether the action was filed within the appropriate period requires knowledge of the commencement date and duration of the lease agreement. The new owner should therefore take into account the date and duration of the lease agreement between the former owner and the tenant. What Happens If the Date of the Lease Agreement Is Disputed? According to the source, where the tenant disputes the commencement date or term alleged by the claimant, the issue should be resolved by collecting all evidence offered by the parties, including witness evidence. A dispute concerning the commencement date of the lease may therefore require separate evidential examination. Must the New Owner Prove the Need? Yes. The source expressly states that an eviction order can be made only if the existence of the need is proven. A bare assertion that the owner needs the property is not sufficient under the framework of the source. How Can the Need Be Proven? According to the Court of Cassation decision included in the source, the claimant may prove the need using all types of evidence, including witnesses. Depending on the particular case, the court may consider witness statements, characteristics of the property and other evidence together. Can Witnesses Be Heard? Yes. The source states that the need may be established through all forms of evidence, including witness evidence. Where the claimant has identified witnesses, the court may need to hear those witnesses and evaluate their evidence together with the remaining material. Can Expert Examination Be Used? In the Court of Cassation decision concerning workplace need cited in the source, it was stated that a comparative inspection by an expert should be conducted where it is necessary to compare the characteristics of the current workplace and the property subject to the action. Certain workplace-need cases may therefore require technical examination of the relevant properties. Does the New Owner Automatically Win If They Are Currently a Tenant Elsewhere? No. According to the source, in workplace-need eviction actions, the fact that the claimant is currently renting another workplace is not by itself sufficient for eviction. Factors such as being under threat of eviction or the acquired property being more suitable or at least equivalent to the existing workplace may be relevant. Why Is Being Under Threat of Eviction Relevant? Regarding workplace need, the source identifies being under threat of eviction from the claimant's current rented premises as one of the circumstances that may support the existence of need. This indicates that a risk of losing the current workplace may support the alleged need. Can Eviction Be Based on the Acquired Property Being Better Than the Existing Workplace? According to the source, yes. For workplace need, it may be relevant that the leased property is more suitable or at least equivalent to the premises currently used by the claimant. The source further states that where the two properties are equivalent, preference may be given to the claimant's ownership right. Can the New Owner Carry Out a Different Business in the Acquired Workplace? According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, the person claiming need may narrow or change the business activity intended to be carried out in the leased property. The decision states that there is no statutory rule preventing such a change. The claimed need must nevertheless still be assessed on the basis of the evidence. Does Changing the Intended Business Automatically Invalidate the Need? According to the source, no. The Court of Cassation stated that the claimant may narrow or change the proposed business activity, even where a different activity was initially stated. The court should collect the evidence of both parties and determine the matter accordingly. Can Property Owned Personally Be Evicted for the Needs of the Owner’s Company? According to the source, personally owned real property cannot be recovered on the basis of the needs of a company of which the owner is a manager, authorised person or owner. The personal need of the owner and the need of a separate legal entity are therefore treated differently. Can I Evict a Tenant from Property I Purchased for My Own Company? The uploaded source states that where the property belongs to a natural person, the need of a company owned or managed by that person cannot be relied upon as the ground for eviction. The source therefore distinguishes between the company's need and the owner's personal workplace need. Does an Existing Co-Owner Become a New Owner by Acquiring the Remaining Shares? According to the source, in jointly owned or co-owned property, the acquisition of the remaining shares by one of the existing co-owners does not allow that person to bring an eviction action in the capacity of a new owner in the sense discussed in the source. The acquisition of the entire property by an outside purchaser and acquisition of additional shares by an existing co-owner are therefore not treated in the same way. Does Article 351 Apply When a Co-Owner Acquires the Remaining Shares in Joint Ownership? The source states that in joint ownership or co-ownership, acquisition of the other shares by an existing co-owner does not permit that person to file an action as a new owner. The source does not separately explain every other possible ownership scenario. What Happens If the New Owner’s Need Disappears During the Proceedings? The Court of Cassation decision included in the source states that the existence of the need on the date of filing is not sufficient and that the need must continue during the proceedings. A need that ceases to exist during the proceedings may therefore affect the eviction assessment. What Does the Court Examine in an Eviction Action Based on the New Owner’s Need? Within the framework of the source, the court particularly examines: The acquisition date, Whether the one-month notice was timely and properly given, Whether the need is genuine, sincere and necessary, Whether the need continues during the proceedings, The commencement date and term of the lease agreement, Whether the action was filed on time, The evidence submitted by the parties. What Evidence May Be Used in an Eviction Action Based on the New Owner’s Need? According to the source, the need may be proven by all types of evidence, including witness evidence. Depending on the nature of the case, relevant evidence may include: The lease agreement, Land registry records and acquisition-date information, The notarial notice and service documents, Witness statements, Information concerning the current workplace, Characteristics of the property subject to the action, Expert examination and inspection. What Are the Most Important Time Limits in an Eviction Action Based on the New Owner’s Need? According to the source, two periods are particularly important: Written notice within one month from the acquisition date, The possibility of filing the action after six months from the acquisition date. The new owner may also use the alternative route based on the end of the existing lease agreement. Are the One-Month Notice Period and Six-Month Period the Same? No. The one-month period concerns written notification by the new owner to the tenant. The six-month period concerns when the eviction action may be filed under Article 351. The two periods must therefore be monitored separately. Must the New Owner Consider the Existing Lease Agreement? The source states that the new owner may also file an eviction action by relying on the agreement made between the former owner and the tenant. It further states that the commencement date and duration of the lease must be known in order to determine whether the action was filed on time. The existing lease agreement therefore remains important to the procedure. Why Are Court of Cassation Decisions Important in Eviction Actions Based on the New Owner’s Need? The uploaded source includes several Court of Cassation decisions concerning the new owner's need. These decisions particularly address: The one-month notice period, The six-month filing period, The requirement that the need be genuine and sincere, Continuation of the need throughout the proceedings, Proof of workplace need, The fact that the claimant being a tenant elsewhere is not sufficient by itself, Comparison between the acquired property and the existing workplace. Eviction Actions Based on the New Owner’s Need in Ataşehir In Ataşehir disputes concerning eviction based on the new owner's need, important matters include: The land-registry acquisition date, Whether notice was given to the tenant within one month, Service of the notice, Completion of the six-month period, Commencement and expiry dates of the lease agreement, Whether the residential or workplace need is genuine, Whether the need is sincere and necessary, Whether the need continues throughout the proceedings. For this reason, in matters involving an Ataşehir lease lawyer, Istanbul lease lawyer, Ümraniye lease lawyer, Üsküdar lease lawyer or Çekmeköy lease lawyer, correct calculation of pre-litigation time limits and proof of the alleged need are important. Ataşehir Lease Lawyer Assistance An eviction action based on the new owner's need is not limited to the question of whether “the owner needs the property.” It also involves matters such as: Determining the acquisition date, Observing the notice period, Ensuring service of the notice, Calculating the six-month filing period, Evaluating the existing lease agreement, Proving the need, Preparing witness and other evidence. The source also emphasises that eviction cases involve numerous procedural elements and important time limits. What Should Be Considered When Choosing a Lease Lawyer? When choosing a lawyer for a dispute based on the new owner's need, relevant considerations may include: Experience in lease law, Knowledge of Article 351, Experience in need-based eviction cases, Ability to manage notice and service procedures, Ability to assess lease agreements and calculate periods, Experience with expert examinations and inspections in workplace-need cases, Familiarity with Court of Cassation practice. Conclusion An eviction action based on the new owner's need is a legal remedy regulated under Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, allowing a person who subsequently acquires the property to seek eviction under specified conditions. The new owner may rely on a residential or workplace need relating to themselves, their spouse, descendants, ascendants or persons whom they are legally obliged to support. However, purchasing the property is not by itself a ground for eviction. The need must be genuine, sincere and necessary, must exist when the action is filed and must continue throughout the proceedings. Temporary needs, needs that have not yet arisen or needs whose realisation depends on a distant future event are not accepted as grounds for eviction in the source. To use the procedure under Article 351, written notice must be given to the tenant within one month from acquisition and the notice must be served. According to the Court of Cassation decision cited in the source, failure to satisfy this requirement cannot later be remedied. Once the notice requirement is satisfied, the new owner may file the action after six months from acquisition. The action does not have to be filed immediately at the end of the sixth month, and the source states that it may be filed until the end of the lease term. In workplace-need cases, the fact that the claimant is currently renting another property is not by itself sufficient. Being under threat of eviction, the property subject to the action being more suitable or at least equivalent to the current workplace and proof of the need through other evidence may be relevant. The need may be proven through all types of evidence, including witnesses, and a comparative inspection by an expert may be used where necessary. Accordingly, matters concerning eviction due to a new owner, eviction action based on the new owner's need, Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, new owner notice, new owner six-month eviction period, Ataşehir lease lawyer, Istanbul lease lawyer, Ümraniye lease lawyer, Üsküdar lease lawyer and Çekmeköy lease lawyer should be assessed according to the particular lease agreement, acquisition date, reason for need and available evidence.