Eviction of the Tenant Due to the New Owner’s Personal Need

Introduction

Lease agreements constitute one of the most essential types of contracts in social and economic life. In particular, the leasing of residential and commercial properties in metropolitan areas has become indispensable both for individuals and businesses. However, a lease agreement is not confined to the relationship between the initial landlord and the tenant. The transfer of ownership of the leased property — namely, the substitution of a new owner — has significant consequences for the future of the lease.

The Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) seeks to safeguard the rights that tenants acquire through their contracts, while simultaneously acknowledging the legitimate personal needs of the new owner. In this context, the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of the new owner’s personal need represents a key issue within Turkish tenancy law.

Legal Framework

Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations grants a specific right of eviction to a person who acquires ownership of a leased property after the conclusion of the lease agreement. According to this provision, if the new owner requires the premises — whether a residence or a business premise — for his or her own use, or for the use of a spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, or other individuals for whom the owner is legally obliged to provide care, the lease agreement may be terminated.

Termination, however, does not occur automatically. The law requires the filing of an eviction lawsuit, subject to strict formal requirements and procedural deadlines. In this way, the legislator aims to balance the tenant’s contractual protections with the new owner’s property rights.

The Nature of the Need

For an eviction claim to be successful, the asserted need must be genuine, sincere, essential, and ongoing. Temporary or speculative needs are insufficient to justify eviction. For instance, a claim that the property might be required at some indeterminate point in the future — such as for a child who may one day attend university — would not be accepted as a valid ground for termination.

Courts assess the sincerity of the need by examining both the owner’s economic and social circumstances and the intended use of the property. If the owner or the person in need already possesses another suitable property that could meet the same requirement, the eviction claim is likely to be dismissed. This argument is among the most frequently invoked defenses by tenants in practice.

Conditions for Exercising the Right of Eviction

Acquisition of the Property After the Lease

The special right of eviction is granted exclusively to those who acquire the property after the lease has been executed. If the lessor who originally concluded the lease agreement wishes to terminate the tenancy for personal need, Article 350 of the TCO applies instead. You can review our relevant article here regarding eviction proceedings due to the landlord’s need.

Mandatory Notification

The new owner must notify the tenant in writing within one month of acquiring the property. While the law does not require a specific form, in practice this notification is generally served through a notarial warning, which provides evidentiary certainty. The notice should clearly specify the person whose need gives rise to the eviction claim, the intended use of the property, and the statutory timeframes. Failure to notify in due time or in the proper form extinguishes the right to seek eviction.

Time Limits

The law grants tenants a minimum period of six additional months of occupancy following notification. Only upon the expiration of this period may the new owner file an eviction lawsuit before the Civil Court of Peace. Alternatively, if the lease is for a fixed term, the owner may initiate proceedings within one month after the contractual term expires, provided that the initial notification was duly served.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies with the new owner. The existence, sincerity, and necessity of the need must be established through concrete evidence. Courts evaluate the claim in light of the owner’s financial condition, family circumstances, the availability of alternative properties, and the overall conduct of the parties.

Whose Need May Be Asserted?

The law recognizes that the relevant need is not limited to the new owner personally but may also extend to close family members and dependents. Accordingly:

• The owner may seek eviction for personal residential or business use.
• The spouse may rely on housing or professional requirements within the family unit.
• Descendants (children, grandchildren) often give rise to claims based on educational needs, marriage, or starting a business.
• Ascendants (parents, grandparents) may invoke their housing or commercial needs.
• Dependents under a legal duty of support may also justify eviction when their care obligations require use of the property.

Judicial Practice

In practice, disputes most commonly revolve around whether the alleged need is genuine. The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) has established consistent jurisprudence emphasizing several points:

1. Prevention of sham claims: If the eviction demand is merely a pretext to remove the tenant and re-let the property at a higher rent, the claim is rejected.
2. Examination of alternative properties: If the owner or the person in need already owns another suitable residence or business premise in the same locality, the necessity of eviction is questioned.
3. Continuity of need: The need asserted at the time of filing must persist throughout the litigation process. If the need ceases to exist, the case is dismissed.
4. Socio-economic evaluation: Judges consider the parties’ social conditions and financial status when determining the legitimacy of the claim.

Tenant’s Right to Compensation

Following eviction on the grounds of necessity, the property may not be leased to anyone other than the evicted tenant within a specified period. If the owner violates this rule, the former tenant is entitled to compensation. The compensation cannot be less than the equivalent of one year’s rent based on the rent paid during the final year of the tenancy. This sanction aims to deter misuse of the eviction mechanism and to safeguard tenants from bad-faith practices.

Conclusion

The eviction of a tenant due to the new owner’s personal need constitutes a cornerstone of Turkish tenancy law. Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations establishes a delicate balance: protecting the tenant’s contractual rights on one hand, while allowing the new owner to exercise legitimate property rights on the other.

For an eviction claim to succeed, the asserted need must be genuine, compelling, and continuous; notification must be served within the prescribed timeframe; and the lawsuit must be filed before the competent court in compliance with procedural rules. Otherwise, the request will be dismissed.

Judicial practice and Court of Cassation precedents provide further clarity, ensuring fairness between landlords and tenants. Ultimately, although the identity of the landlord may change, the stability of legal relationships and the protection of both parties’ interests remain crucial — not only for individual justice but also for broader social harmony.