After the Eviction Decision, the 3-month rental fee to be deposited for the postponement of the execution is the security fee; It is not a rental fee. Therefore, it cannot be deducted from the rent debt.

Lease agreements are relationships that include mutual rights and obligations established between the lessee and the lessor. Enforcement processes for the eviction of the tenant are frequently experienced, especially in cases such as non-payment of rents.

In the event that eviction decisions are enforced, some legal regulations come into play in order to protect tenants. In this context, tenants who object to the eviction decision are required to deposit the 3-month rent as collateral for the postponement of the execution.

*Definition of Guarantee Amount*:

A collateral is an amount that is requested for the purpose of guaranteeing a certain debt.

The three-month rent deposited cannot be considered as a provision for the tenant’s obligation to pay his past or current rents; This situation is not used as a set-off against a rent debt belonging to the tenant. In other words, this amount will not correspond to existing rent arrears.

It is not possible to associate the tenant’s past rent debts with the collateral deposited for the postponement of execution. The guarantee is an arrangement determined only for the purpose of stopping the enforcement process and preventing the tenant from suffering due to the process.

Court of Appeals 3. Law Department 2011/14748 E. , 2011/19401 K.

In the petition, the defendant was requested to cancel the objection to the proceedings for the collection of the rent receivable of 3,976.51 TL and to collect the 40% execution denial compensation together with the costs. The court dismissed the case, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I

After it was found that the appeal was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered accordingly. In his petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that in accordance with the due date clause in the lease agreement between the plaintiff (lessor) and the defendant (lessee), execution proceedings were initiated against the defendant for the remaining months due to non-payment of the rent for the months of April and May 2009 by the defendant, and that the defendant appealed from the decision regarding the eviction of the defendant from the immovable property with the removal of the objection they filed upon the defendant’s objection to the proceedings and the partial acceptance of the eviction case Stating that it was not finalized due to the fact that the rent for the months of April and May 2010 was not deposited by the defendant, the enforcement proceedings numbered 2010/4935 initiated against him were unfairly objected to, and requested the cancellation of the objection and the continuation of the proceedings and the collection of 40% of the execution denial compensation from the defendant. In his petition, the defendant’s attorney stated; Upon their objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated against them by the plaintiffs, he requested the dismissal of the lawsuit by stating that he deposited a total of 7,500.00 TL, including the three-month rental fee for the months of April, May and June 2010, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, out of the monthly 1,789.59 TL determined by the Enforcement Civil Court. By the court; Upon the removal of the objection filed by the plaintiff and the appeal of the decision made as a result of the eviction case, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that a deposit of 7,500.00 TL was deposited by the defendant in the execution file for three months’ rent and it was decided to postpone the execution, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney in due time. In view of the material on file, the evidence on which the decision was based and the statutory reasons, and in particular the absence of any error in the appreciation of the evidence, the plaintiff’s other appeals are without merit. However, it is admitted by the parties that the lease relationship was established by the lease agreement dated 01.04.2008. The contract in question has been issued for a period of 1 year and the monthly rental price has been determined as 1,650.00 TL. Since the parties have accepted that the monthly rental price is 1,789.59 TL in return for their signatures, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the monthly rental price.

The dispute centers on whether the money deposited in the execution file as collateral for the stay of execution can be accepted as a rental fee. Stay of Execution in Enforcement Law (postponement of execution) is regulated in Article 36 of the OIC. Since the provision of this article will be applied to the eviction decisions made by both the general courts and the execution court in accordance with Articles 269 and 276 of the HRC, the amount of security to be requested from the debtor tenant is “three months’ rent. However The security money deposited in the enforcement file for the stay of execution can never be rent money. Assurance It is also not possible for the plaintiff to take the money before the conditions are met. In this respect, it must be accepted that the money deposited in the execution is not rent money, but collateral.

In this respect, the court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s case by accepting the TL 7,500.00 deposited by the defendant in the execution file for the deferred execution as the rent for the months of April and May 2010, which was requested by the plaintiff and not paid by the defendant, was not considered correct and required reversal. As such, without considering the principles explained above, the impugned judgment is erroneous and since the appeals are meritorious for these reasons, the judgment is hereby affirmed. QUASHED under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. and that the appellant’s fee received in advance be refunded to the appellant on request.

Decided unanimously on 24.11.2011.

As a result, if the tenant wants the execution to be postponed during the eviction process, an issue that should be underlined is that the three-month rent deposited is collateral and does not correspond to the existing rent debts. This is an important legal regulation in order to protect the rights of the tenant and to prevent victimization.

Tenants should know their rights in such legal processes and should be careful in the enforcement proceedings carried out in cases arising from lease agreements by obtaining professional legal support. A conscious legal process management prevents the tenant from facing negative consequences. For this reason, it is recommended that you consult a lawyer who is an expert in the field of rental law in order to get legal advice specific to your personal situation.