ABSTRACT
The enforcement of the rental agreement related provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 which entered into force on 01.07.2012, has been postponed for 8 years, in regard to the commercial rentals whose lessee is a tradesman or a legal entity. It is important to determine under which conditions these provisions containing a lot of uncertainties will be postponed as well as which provisions will be subject to postponement and after that which provisions will be applied to the legal gap occured, in case of the related provision’s postponement.
I. INTRODUCTION
After the approval of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 (“TCO”) by the legislator and its publication in the Official Gazette on 04.02.2011, it has been decided that the provisional article 2 of the Code Related to the Amendments for Accelerating the Judicial Services (“Code numbered 6217”) and the articles 322, 324, 330, 339, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346 and 353 of the TCO will not be applied for 5 years starting from 01.07.2012 and, in rental agreements, the provisions of the relevant agreement will be applied as part of the freedom of contract concerning the subjects mentioned in the given articles. The said provisional article of the Code numbered 6217 has been found incorrect because of the fact that it has been regulated considering the draft version of the references made to TCO. In order to correct that error, the article 53 of Code Related to the Amendments About Some Codes and Statutory Decrees (“Code numbered 6353”) has been enacted by the legislator and the mentioned provision of amendment has entered into force by being published in the Official Gazette numbered 28351.
The final version of the provisional article 2 of the Code numbered 6217 after the amendment made by the Code numbered 6353 is as follows:
PROVISIONAL ARTICLE 2- In office rentals where the lessee is considered as a tradesman, within the Turkish Commercial Code or a legal entity of civil law or public law, the articles 323, 325, 331, 340, 342, 343, 344, 346 and 354 of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 and dated 11/01/2011 will not be applied for 8 years starting from 01/07/2012. In this case, in rental agreements, the provisions of the concerning agreement will be applied as part of the freedom of contract concerning the subjects mentioned in the given articles. In cases where there is not any provision in the rental agreement, the provisions of the abrogated Code of Obligations will be applied.
As a result of the amendment, some postponed provisions of the Code numbered 6217 have been removed and replaced by new provisions (the articles 323, 325, 331, 340, 344 and 354) and the duration of postponement has been increased from 5 years to 8 years. Also, it is mentioned that in case there isn’t any provision in the agreement, the abrogated Code of Commerce (“Code numbered 818”) will be applied1.
In the first part of our article, the conditions in which the postponement will take place have been stoled. our work, afterwards the provisions which are subject to postponement have been seperately examined and our review about the concerning provision has been included. In the conclusion part, the general review regarding the concerning provisions has been summarized in total.
II. CONDITIONS OF POSTPONEMENT
It is an important issue to determine for whom the postponed provisions of TCO will be applicable. For this reason, the conditions of postponement should be well understood.
The provisions which have been postponed until 2020 will be subject to postponement in case the lessee is a tradesman as described in the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 (“TCC”) or a legal entity of private law or public law and the subject of the rental contract is an office. The meaning of these terms are explained below.
A. Lessee Being a Tradesman or a Legal Entity
In order to be able to postpone the postponed provisions of the TCO, firstly the lessee is required to be a tradesman as described in the TCC or a private or publice legal entity. In this context, legal entities of private law (joint stock companies, limited liability companies, commondite companies, cooperatives, associations, foundations) and legal entities of public law (public administrations and public institutions) will be a part of the postponement.
The provisions regarding the tradesman are regulated between the articles 12 and 16 of the TCC. According to Art. 12, “Any person managing a commercial business, even partly, on his own behalf is called tradesman.” It is clear that those who can be considered as tradesmen according to this description will be within the scope of the postponement. On the other hand, according to the second clause of the Art. 12, “A person who has declared to the public by circulars, newspapers, radio, television and other means of publication that he established and opened a commercial business, or has declared the situtation by registering his business to the Trade Registry, will still be considered as a tradesman even if he has not actually started running the business yet.” According to Inceoglu, the people mentioned in the second clause should also be considered within the scope of the postponement2.
Additionally, it is mentioned in the third clause of the same article that, “A person who has opened a commercial business and who is acting on his own behalf, on behalf of an ordinary company or another company which is not considered legally valid for any reason will be liable to third paties as if he is a tradesman.” The people mentioned in this clause are liable to third parties as if they are tradesmen but they are not considered as tradesmen, as understood from the wording of the clause. For this reason, they are not subject to the postponement.
On the other hand, the postponed provisions related to the office rentals where the lessee is an artisan will not be taken into consideration since the artisans are not considered as tradesmen according to the description in the Art. 15 of the TCC.
The tradesman can be a real person as well as a legal entity. It is stated in the Art. 16 of the TCC titled legal entities that “Commercial companies and foundations and associations which are managing a commercial business in order to fulfill their mission and the Government as to be governed by civil law provisions according to its founding legislation or to be managed commercially, private provincial administration, municipality, village and other institutions and foundations established by public legal entities are also considered as a tradesman.” Legal entities including commercial companies and foundations and associations which are managing a commercial business for fulfilling their mission are considered as tradesmen and are subject to the postponement if the subject of the rental is office rental.
B. Contract Being Related to Office Rental
Another condition of the postponement is the subject of the rental being an office rental. Office rental is not described in the TCO. The common opinion in the doctrin defines the office as the place where the people conduct commercial, industrial, economic and professional activities3. In other words, the place rented should be related to the lessee’s professional and economic activities. There is not any difference between being roofed or not in order for the office rental to be within the scope of the postponement. The meaning implied by the expression “roofed” is that the floors are covered and surrounded by walls4. We would like to mention that the enforcement of not all provisions related to house and office rentals are postponed within this regulation. The postponed provisions related to house and office rentals are the following: TCO artc. 340, TCO artc. 342, TCO artc. 343, TCO artc. 344, TCO artc. 346 and TCO artc. 354. The provisions other than the mentioned ones will be applied by the agreements within the scope of the postponement5. Therefore, regarding to the provisions subjected to postponement, the determination that the rented place has the quality of roofed office is important.
III. POSTPONED PROVISIONS
A. Provision Related to the Transfer of the Rental Agreement
The article regulated in the article 323 of the TCO and which is about the transfer of the rental agreement is a part of the postponed provisions. The content of the article is the following:
ARTICLE 323- The lessee cannot transfer the rental agreement to anyone without the written permission of the lessor. The lessor cannot refuse to give this permission unless there is valid ground in the office rentals.
The person to whom the rental agreement has been transferred with the lessor’s wrtitten consent, remplaces the lessee in the rental agreement and the transferror lessee becomes free of his debts towards the lessor.
The transferror in the office rentals is jointly liable with the transferee until the termination of the rental agreement and for a maximum duration of 2 years.
According to the related article, the lessor can only avoid giving consent in case of the existence of a valid ground. However, because of the fact that the mentioned provision will enter into force on 01.07.2020, until this date the lessor can avoid giving consent to the transfer of the rental agreement without the existence of a valid ground. Turkmen believes that regarding the provisions about the rental agreement’s transfer that will be applied until the duration of postpone, the provisions of the rental agreement will continue to be applied only if they are not against the imperative provisions of the legislation (artc.19-20 of the CO numbered 818, artc. 27-28 of the TCO). As a result of the freedom of contract and during the postpone duration, the written consent condition provided in the new code will not be necessary for the transfer of the rental agreement6. For this reason, the lessor has the right to decide about giving consent without giving any justification during the postpone duration. The lessor cannot be forced into making a transfer agreement.
During the postpone duration, in case of non-existence of a provision in the contract, (i) article 259 of the Code numbered 818 and (ii) article 12 of the Real Estate Rental Code are applied. These articles and their explications are given below:
(i) Article 259 of the Code numbered 818;
H) The Lessee of the Lessee
The lessee can fully or partly rent the thing which is subject to rental to third parties or he can transfer the rental agreement to third parties if the lessee doesn’t require a change which is harmfull for the lessor.
If the following lessee uses another rental than the one which was allowed to the previous lessee, the following lessee becomes liable towards the lessor.
The lessor is authorised for ensuring that the second lessee obeys these rules.
According to this provision of the Code numbered 818, the lessee can fully or partly rent the thing which is subject to rental to third parties or he can transfer the rental agreement between them to third parties under the condition of not requiring a change which will damage the lessor. If the following lessee uses another rental than the one which was allowed to the previous lessee, the following lessee becomes liable towards the lessor. The lessor is authorised for ensuring that the second lessee obeys these rules. During the postpone duration, the parties can apply this provision in the Code numbered 818 in their internal relationship, as a result of the freedom of contract.
(ii) Article 12 of the Real Estate Rental Code numbered 6570 (“RERC”);
The lessee cannot fully or partly rent the rented place to anyone or cannot transfer the right of use or the agreement to anyone or cannot fully or partly get this place occupied even though he left the property, unless there is a contrary precision in the agreement.
During this postpone duration, if the parties wish, they can apply the article 12 of the RERC when there isn’t any provision in the agreement. According to this provision, the lessee cannot partly or totally rent the place rented to another person or cannot transfer the right of use or the agreement to another person.
B. Regulation of the Return of the Rented Place Before the Termination of the Agreement (Early Evacuation)
Another provision which has been postponed is the article 325 of the TCO. This provision regulates the situation related to all house and roofed office rentals about the return of the rented place before the termination of the agreement because of the reasons such as the case that the lessee needs to evacuate early the rented place for a reason beyond his controll or that the lessee can’t obtain the expected profit from the office rentals. The content of this provision is as following:
Return of the rented place before the termination of the agreement
ARTICLE 325- In case that the lessee returns the rented place without conforming to the duration of contract or the rescission period, his debts arising from the rental agreement continues for a reasonable period of time that the rented place can be rented with the similar conditions. In case that the lessee finds a new lessee who has the ability to pay and who is ready to take over the rental agrement and whom the lessor is expected to approve, the lessee’s debts arising from the rental agreement terminate.
The lessor is liable for deducting the expenses he got rid of making and the profit he earned from using differently the rented place or the profit he deliberately avoided.
The provision of this article is not included in the Code numbered 818. The Code numbered 6353 which postponed this provision states also that the parties can make regulations between them by the agreement, as a result of the freedom of contract and without being against the imperative provisions by saying that; “In rental agreements, in the subjects mentioned in these articles, the provisions of the agreement are applied, as a result of the freedom of contract. In cases where there is no provision in the agreement, the provisions of the abrogated Code of Obligations are applied.”
In case of early evacuation of the rented place, an opinion in the doctrine says that the rental agreement doesn’t terminate by early evacuation and for this reason, the rental price that the lessee should pay for a reasonable duration is still existent. The opinion of the Court of Cassation in case of early evacuation is that the indemnity that the lessee will pay is limited to the reasonable period of time that the rented place can be rented with the same conditions. This provision is regulated in the TCC as “renting with the similar conditions”7. This provision gives the possibility to the lessee to defaecate the debts arising from the agreement in case that he finds a new lessee who has the ability to pay and who is ready to take over the rental agreement and whom the lessor is expected to approve. So this provision is essentially contributed to the lessee’s benefit. On the other hand, because of the fact that this provision is subject to postponement, the lessee will not be able to get rid of the debts arising from the agreement even if the lessee finds a reasonable lessee that can be approved by the lessor and the lessee will continue to be liable within the reasonable period of time that the rented place can be rented with the same conditions, according to the principal accepted by the jurisprudence of the Court of Casation8. However, because of the fact that it is regulated in the second paragraph of the article that the lessor is liable for deducting the expenses he got rid of making and the profit he earned from using differently the rented place or the profit he deliberately avoided, the lessee’s right of deducting these expenses won’t be subject to any changes with the postponement, as it is considered as a reflection of the articles 43 and 44 of the Code numbered 8189.
C. The Extraordinary Termination Provision
Another provision which has been postponed is the article 331 of the TCO titled “Extraordinary Termination”. According to this provision; “Each party, which make the rental relation unattractive to itself because of important causes, can terminate the contract at any time by following the condition of termination.”
The judgment offers the opportunity to terminate the agreement awfully instead of the usual condition of termination, so that the contracting party can terminate the agreement prematurely. Since the conditions of the agreement have changed after attesting, the prosecution has become unbearable10. If so the party can terminate the agreement, under the terms of contract. The agreement may be terminated in due time. This provision correlate with the article 264 of the Code numbered 818. According to this provision, the compensation may not be less than 6 rents, if the rental agreement amounted 1 year. The compensation has to be taken over by the party who has terminated the agreement. In the TCO, the compensation which was accrued is allocated to the justice. Furthermore, the justice is entitled to determine the important reason in case of extraordinary termination. The article 264 of the Code numbered 818 is to be used, although the provision is postponed.
D. Regulation Related to the Connected Agreement
One of the postponed provisions of the article 340 of the TCO will order a ban for protecting the lessees. The ban should keep the lessees to assume a second contract beside the rental agreement. According to this provision; “In the house and office rental agreements, the lessee cannot incur a dept with the connected agreement of correct usage, but with something, which is irrelevant with the correct usage.”
Because of the postponement, this provision do not enter into force until 01.07.2020. If after this date a contract is signed in connection with connected agreements and if they are incompatible with each other, they apply as invalid. However the rental agreement stays valid. Each party has the chance to make a connected agreement until 01.07.2020 because either the Code numbered 818 nor the Real Estate Rent Code “RERC” do not ban it. Moreover, the connected agreement ban goes with the TCO for the first time into the law system. Certainly there exists uncertainty about the implementation because of the postponed period. The reflection of the thoughts from the legal provision in practice will turn out with the decision of justice. Thereby the connected agreement ban can be disposed when the following conditions are fullfilled:
i. The lessee cannot incur a dept with the connected agreement of correct usage, but with something, which is irrelevant with the correct usage,
ii. The prosecution of the rental agreement must be bonded with the signed up contract between the lessee and the third person,
iii. The connected agreement has to be favour of the lessee.
If these conditions attract interest in the connected agreements they become invalid and just the rental agreement stays valid. That the condition for a rental agreement is to connect with an other contract means, that the prosecution of the rental agreement is the result for wanting to connect with a connected agreement. It is understood from the article 340 of the TCO that it is possible to infer that the ban for closing a contract do not include just the contracting party but also the third person.
If the lessee makes the process with unfavourable conditions, although he do not have shortage, he cannot have advantages. In this case the contract will be invalid in case of the connected agreement11.
E. Provision Related to the Assurance Providen by the Lessee
Another postponed provision is the article 342 of the TCO. According to the related provision;
Within commercial and residential rental agreements, if the lessee had to give an assurance in accordance with the agreement, this assurance cannot exceed three months’ rental fee.
If the lessee and the lessor have agreed on that money or negotiable intstruments may be given as assurance, the lessee has to transfer money into a deposit account and store the negotiable instrument in a bank so as not to be withdrawn without the lessor’s approval. The bank may give back the assurance only with the acceptance of both the lessee and the lessor or with the finalized executive proceedings or with the final court decision.
If the lessor does not notify the bank in writing that he takes an action against the lessee about the rental agreement or that he initiates an executive or bankruptcy proceedings at latest within 3 (three) months following the date on which the rental agreement has been terminated, the bank is obliged to give the assurance back upon the demand of the Lessee.
By the article 342 of the TCO, within commercial and residential rental agreements, the opportunity to demand assurance from the Lesse is accepted12. With the same article, the amount of assurance (security deposit) is limited to three months’ rental fee. It may be decided that the assurance is accepted as money or negotiable instruments. In this situation, in the condition that these have been provided as money or as negotiable instruments, it has become obligatory for them to be stored in a bank. The bank may give back the assurance only with the common consent of the two parties or with the finalized executive proceedings or depending on a final court decision. Together with this, it has been desired to prevent the difficulties arisen by the security deposit in practice. There was no similar restriction or obligation in in the Code numbered 818 and the RERC13. As we have already mentioned before on the related parts of our study, about the topic subjected to postpone, first the provisions of the rental agreement; if there was no related provision in the rental agreement; the earlier Code of Obligation numbered 818 or RERC shall be implemented14. According to another opinion in doctrine which we have not been agreed on, it is not appropriate to refer to the provisions of the abrogated Code number 81815.
F. The Rental Fee and the Regulation of the Fee Determination
The TCO article 344 includes the rental fee. This provision is composed of 4 clauses. According to workplaces which are rented by a lessee or private or public legal entity, under TCC, related provision has been postponed for 8 years. And meanwhile which provisions will be used is not determined. There are some problems for ordering the rental fee in the persecution. The decisions of the Court of Cassation shows changes in the rental fee. According the provision of the article 344, relating to increasing level of rental purchases, there are some restrictor regulations about lessee. But after this 8 years of procrastination this regulation won’t be in use. But which regulation the contracting party has to follow? First of all, we can say that, each parties have right to specify the contracts’ provisions under the princible which is freedom of contract. In case that the parties don’t reveal their intention regarding the determination of the rental fee, parties won’t be able to apply the provisions which are numbered 818 and 6570. Because these provisions are not contained in the law, the parties won’t be able to apply these provisions. The dispensation of justice of the Court of Cassation is in this case important. According to the decision dated 19.02.2015 numbered E.1601 1637, made by the Court of Cassation, the determination of the rental fee about the lessee and also a tradesmans’ workplace is as below;
The petitioner in his lawsuit; that he buy the property and lease the property for 900 TL. The other managements lease the property for 15.000 TL and that he wants that the rental fee should be determined that amount. According to the expertise which is decided by the Court, monthly rental fee is determined by the rule of right and excellence. The defendants’ counsel asserted that, the fee which was determined by the rules of rights and excellences was not right because of the special terms in the contract. And after that the counsel took an appeal about this issue.
By the Court,
According to the article 53 of the Code numbered.6353 which makes an amendment in the Provisional Article 2 of the Code numbered 6217; in office rentals that the lessee in one of the people stated in the Turkish Commercial Code as a trader and a legal entity of civil law or public law, taking into consideration that the article 344 of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 will not be applied for 8 years starting from 01.07.2012 because of the tradesman attribution of the defendant, it was not deemed correct to determine the rent amount according to the principle of right and excellences according to the increase rate of the wholesale price decided in the contract.
The court did not approve the rental price determined in accordance with the principle of right and excellences and dismissed the judgment on the grounds that the parties are bound with the provisions that they agreed by their will in the contract instead of the postponed provision regarding the office rentals in which the lessee had the title of “tradesman”.
G. Regulation Ban Against the Lessee
According to the article 346 of the TCO which is another provision that has been postponed;
Besides the rental fee and other expenses there is no other payment that the lessee has to pay. In particular, if the rental price is not paid on time, the agreement to pay the penalty fee or to pay the next rental fee is invalid.
The provision for a tradesman or a lessee is with the article 53 of the Code numbered 6353 postponed until 01.07.2020. Until that date, the cost to tenants in rental and lease contracts which would apply if the regulations have been brought to another payment obligations goes well beyond issues are controversial in doctrine.
There are various provisions, which can be insert for the postponed article 346 of the TCO. The first provision is in the Code numbered 6353;
The terms of the lease agreement for the freedom of contract are applicable for the matters specified in these articles in the lease contracts. In cases where there is no provision in the lease contracts, the provisions of the Law of Obligations apply.
This article says that; the provisions of the lease contract which are not in contradiction to the mandatory provisions and which the parties have concluded with their free will apply primarily; the Law No. 818 shall apply to the matters not included in the lease contract. Turkmen states that it is a negligent gap to make references only to the Code numbered 818, so the aim of the legislator is the conservation of the previous situtation before the enter in force of the legislation and the RERC will find a field of application regarding the postponed provisions16. Gokyayla advocated the opposite view and stated that it would not be appropriate to adopt a law which has been abolished and has not been referenced17. In our opinion; where no provisions are contained in the lease agreement and no provision in the Law no 818, the provisions of the RERC numbered 6570 shall be applicable.
Despite the regulation above which is found in the Code numbered 6353 which postpones the article 346 of the TCO, the most accepted opinion in the doctrine which we are for states that the imperative regulations of the Code numbered 818 or the RERC should be applied within the postponed duration until 01.07.2020 but not the provisions of the contract. The equivalent of the article 346 of the TCO in the RERC is the article 16. According to the article 16;
Those who receive more money than the lease fee determined in accordance with this law in the name of the nuisance value or in any name, those who act on behalf of them, or those who act against them in contradiction with the provisions of Article 15, shall be sentenced to six months to one year imprisonment and charged for heavy fine for three years rent.
Even though the penal sanction mentioned in this imperative provision are not applied, it is mentioned in the doctrine and the decisions of the Court of Cassation that the contracts related to getting more money than the rental fee named as key money or whatever it is, the contracts need to be considered as invalid18. Thus, we believe that during the postpone duration it is not possible to impose additional payment obligation to the lessees except for the sub-expenses. However, because of the fact that there isn’t any provision in the Code numbered 818 and the RERC, the parties can agree on the penal clause and the clause of maturity in the contract.
H. Provision Regarding the Limitedness of the Ground of Action
The limitedness of the grounds of action is regulated in the 354 of the TCO. According to this, Provisions regarding the termination of the rental agreement cannot be changed against the lessee by bringing an action.
It is stated in this provision that it is not possible to change the reasons for terminating the contract against the lessee, even by bringing an action. This provision is also postponed for 8 years. Turkmen and Inceoglu said that the postponed provisions will not have any consequences19. Burcuoglu criticized the postponed provision20. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the RERC numbered 6570 that the reasons for evacuation are limted and the contracts against this are invalid. Gokyayla alleged that the lessor can benefit from the reasons for termination stated in the legislation as well as integrate with the conract the reasons for termination which are not specified in the legislation21. Thus, during the postpone duration, this provision which protects the lessee from the reasons of termination which are not mentioned in the legislation will not be applied. However, as we mentioned above, in the article 8 of the RERC numbered 6570, the reasons for evacuation are listed limitedly (numerus clausus) and it is invalid to evacuate the lessee apart from these reasons. The opinion in the doctrine that we agree on is that due to the fact that the regulations of the RERC which are imperative will take over the contractual regulations, the postponement of this provision will not have any effect in practice because of the fact that there is an imperative regulation regarding this subject in the RERC numbered 6570.
IV. CONCLUSION
In the light of these, we can say that the Code numbered 818 and the provisions of rental agreements concluded between the parties which are not against the imperative provisions of the RERC numbered 6570 will be applied in the place of the postponed provisions. In other words, the existence of the principle of freedom of contract doesn’t mean that the imperative provisions of the abrogated code won’t be taken into consideration. The freedom of contract is only possible when it isn’t against the imperative provisions of the abrogated code. The legislator’s purpose by this postponement is not to make the lessees suffer from the provisions of the agreements which have been imposed to them by the lessors. How the postponed provisions protecting the lessee will be applied will be clarified with the decisions of the Court of Cassation after 2020. However, it is possible that the harmonization period of the provisions take a considerable time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdulkerim Yıldırım, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kiralarında Kiracının Güvence Vermesi, Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal, Cover 64, nr. 1, Year 2015
Ahmet Türkmen, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunun Kira Sözleşmesine İlişkin Yürürlüğü Ertelenen Hükümlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Ankara Bar Journal, No:1, 2015
Cevdet Yavuz, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Ed. 10, İstanbul November 2014
Cevdet Yavuz/Faruk Acar/Burak Özen, Borçlar Hukuku Dersleri Özel Hükümler, Ed. 12, Istanbul 2013
Emre Gökyayla, İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Sözleşmelerin Sona Ermesine Uygulanacak Hükümler, TAAD, July 2013
Emre Gökyayla, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Hükümlerin Uygulama Alanı, Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler’e Armağan, Volume II, Yaşar University Elektronic Journal, Volume 8, Exclusive number Izmir 2013
Haluk Burcuoğlu, Borçlar Kanununa Getirilen Yenilikler Semineri, Izmir Bar Journal, May 2012, Year 77, The Code of Obligations Exclusive number
Murat Aydoğu, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kirası Sözleşmelerinde Kiracının Güvence (Depozito) Verme Borcu (TBK 342), Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Law Journal, Volume 14, number 1, 2012
Murat Aydoğdu/Nalan Kahveci, Türk Borçlar Hukuku, Özel Borç İlişkileri, 2nd Edition, Adalet Press, Ankara 2014
Murat İnceoğlu, Kira Hukuku, Volume 2, Istanbul 201
Mustafa Alper Gümüş, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Volume 1, İstanbul 2013
Kardelen Ateşçi, Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun Kiraya İlişkin Ertelenen Hükümleri, İstanbul Bar Journal, November-December 2017
Turgut Öz, Yargıtay’ın Kat Karşılığı İnşaat Sözleşmelerine İlişkin Bazı İçtihatlarının Eleştirisi, Fascicule Law Journal
Aydın Zevkliler/Emre Gökyayla, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, 14th Edition, Ankara 2014
FOOTNOTES
1 Kardelen Ateşçi, Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun Kiraya İlişkin Ertelenen Hükümleri, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, (İstanbul Bar Journal), November - December 2017, p.131.
2 Murat İnceoğlu, Kira Hukuku, Vol. 2, Istanbul 2014, p.575.
3 Aydın Zevkliler/Emre Gökyayla, Borçlar Hukuku, Özel Borç İlişkileri, 14th Ed, Ankara 2014, p.202; Cevdet Yavuz/Faruk Acar/Burak Özen, Borçlar Hukuku Dersleri Özel Hükümler, 12th Ed, İstanbul 2013, p.289-290; Murat Aydoğdu/ Nalan Kahveci, Türk Borçlar Hukuku, Özel Borç İlişkileri, Ankara 2014, p.596.
4 Nihat Yavuz, Kira Hukuku, 6th Edition, Ankara 2018, p.453.
5 Emre Gökyayla, İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Sözleşmelerin Sona Ermesine Uygulanacak Hükümler, TAAD, July 2013, p.156.
6 Ahmet Türkmen, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunun Kira Sözleşmesine İlişkin Yürürlüğü Ertelenen Hükümlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Ankara Bar Journal, No.1, 2015, p.341.
7 Supreme Court 6th Chamber numbered E. 2010/12070, K. 2011/230, dated 2.3.2011; Supreme Court 6th Chamber numbered E. 2012/5538, K. 2012/10456, dated 11.7.2012; Supreme Court 6th Chamber numbered E. 2013/2864, K. 2013/14793, dated 4.11.2013.
8 Alper Gümüş, Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Istanbul 2013, p. 292; İnceoğlu, p.5.
9 Türkmen, p.353. 10 Cevdet Yavuz, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Ed. 10, Istanbul November 2014, p.582.
10 Cevdet Yavuz, Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Ed. 10, Istanbul November 2014, p.582.
11İnceoğlu, p.41.
12 Abdulkerim Yıldırım, Konut Ve Çatılı İşyeri Kiralarında Kiracının Güvence Vermesi, Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal, Cover 64, nr. 1, Year 2015, p.237.
13 Turgut Öz, Yargıtay’ın Kat Karşılığı İnşaat Sözleşmelerine İlişkin Bazı İçtihatlarının Eleştirisi, Fascicule Law Journal, p.5.
14 Gökyayla, İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Sözleşmelerin Sona Ermesine Uygulanacak Hükümler, p.149.
15 Murat Aydoğu, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kirası Sözleşmelerinde Kiracının Güvence (Depozito) Verme Borcu (TBK 342), Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Law Journal, Cover 14, nr. 1, 2012, p.28.
16 Türkmen, p.350. 17 Emre Gökyayla, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Hükümlerin Uygulama Alanı, Yaşar University Elektronic Journal, Exclusive number, 2013, p.1238.
18 İnceoğlu, p. 103.
19 Türkmen, p.341; İnceoğlu, p.585.
20 Haluk Burcuoğlu, Borçlar Kanununa Getirilen Yenilikler Semineri, Izmir Bar Journal, May 2012, Year 77, p.2., Exclusive Volume, p.72.
21 Gökyayla, Konut ve Çatılı İşyeri Kiralarına İlişkin Hükümlerin Uygulama Alanı, p.1234.
