A company operating in Ankara leased its place of business for a period of 5 years for a rent of 14 thousand TL per month with a lease agreement dated 1 January 2012. The company's official took the sign under the lease agreement, "If the tenant evacuated the property within the lease period and left it, he would be responsible for the rent for the remaining months of the lease period." However, the company, which cited the fact that things went badly, terminated the lease by sending a warning to the owner on March 4, 2015, 2 years before the contract was over. The handed over the key of the workplace that it had unloaded to the property owner for the minutes.
Despite the fact that the property had been evacuated before the date of the contract, the owner of the workplace, who requested a 2-year salary, started the executive order on the company. The company, which appealed to the executive, filed a lawsuit against the Ankara 6th Magistrates' Court.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the immovable was evacuated and the immovable was immediately disposed of after the eviction was agreed upon by the parties. The Court of Appeals, which came into effect when the decision appealed to the owner of the plaintiff's property, the Court of Justice took a precedent in a precedent.
The Supreme Court of Appeals, which ruled that the principle of loyalty to the contract which is dominant in the contract law, was admitted in the law, said in its decision, "The parties are bound by the contract period according to the principle of loyalty to the contract and, as a rule, no termination before the end of the contract, otherwise, the tenant is entitled to early termination on behalf of the tenant and the termination must be in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the contract The tenant is not entitled to an early termination without paying any compensation or compensation to the tenant on the tenancy agreement between the parties Early termination of the lease the tenant company is obliged to pay all the rents until the end of the lease period according to the contract.In the evacuation protocol arranged between the parties, which is kept hidden, receipt of the key request by the plaintiff can not be interpreted as a withdrawal from the penal clause. For this reason, it is not correct to decide in writing the rejection of the case, if the court has to make a decision considering that the tenant is responsible for the lease price up to the end of the contract period as a punitive condition. The decision on appeal appeals was decided by a vote of unanimity. "
The proprietor of the court in the court asked the defendant to decide to cancel the appeal by stating that the defendant objected to the lease contract and that the defendant objected to the lease agreement for the eviction and abandonment of the property while the contract was still underway. The defense lawyer who defended the court stated that the contract was terminated because the defendant company was in financial difficulty. The lawyer demanded that the case be rejected, stating that the arrangement in article 4/3 of the contract was indemnity and that the property was not rehabilitated immediately after the evacuation.