Eviction for Landlord’s Need in Türkiye: Time Limits and Proof

If a landlord’s child needs to live in a rented home, must the tenant move out immediately? And what should a tenant ask when told, “I need the property”? Under Turkish law, a landlord’s need is not a self-executing eviction notice. It is a ground for asking a court to end a residential or roofed-workplace lease. The reality of the need matters, but so do the lease terms, notices and filing dates.

Whose need can justify the claim?

Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) covers a residential or workplace need of the lessor, their spouse, descendants, ascendants or other people whom the lessor is legally obliged to support. A child’s wish to live separately may therefore be relevant, but the family relationship alone does not establish why this property is needed. Rebuilding or substantial alteration under the same article is a distinct ground with different requirements.

The need must exist when the action is filed and continue during the proceedings. In a workplace dispute, the landlord wanted to sell construction materials from the rented shop with his son. The trial court dismissed the claim. The Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2017/4334 K.2017/12369, 20 September 2017, set aside that judgment and required consideration of both the evidence of unemployment and the suitability of the shop for the proposed business. Its point was not that unemployment always entitles a landlord to eviction: the intended use and the premises must be assessed together.

What proves a genuine need?

For a home, the proposed occupant’s present housing arrangements, a lease elsewhere and a credible plan to occupy may be relevant. For a workplace, the intended activity, the person’s employment situation and the suitability of the premises may matter. Documents and witness accounts should answer two linked questions: who will use the property, and why is this property required? In E.2018/7751 K.2019/493, 23 January 2019, the Court of Cassation set aside a dismissal where the son’s lease of another home and witness testimony supported the stated need.

Inconsistent explanations can point the other way. In E.2012/814 K.2012/4701, 22 March 2012, the asserted occupant shifted from the claimant to a father-in-law and then a son, whose marriage and housing plans were not sufficiently substantiated. The eviction judgment was set aside. That decision arose under the former tenancy legislation, so it illustrates the evidential problem rather than applying today’s Article 350 directly.

A tenant disputing the claim should likewise identify concrete facts, rather than merely assert that the need is insincere. Another available property or a change in the proposed occupant’s plans may matter, but the mere existence of another property does not decide every case: its ability to meet the particular need is material.

In what order do the deadline, notice and mediation arise?

Start with the type of lease. Under TCO Article 350, an action based on a fixed-term lease is filed within one month starting at the end of the agreed term. For an indefinite-term lease, the starting date is determined under the general rules on termination periods and notice, followed by a one-month filing period. The original signature date alone is not a reliable filing calendar.

The statute does not impose a universal advance warning before every Article 350 action. Article 353, however, provides that if the lessor notifies the tenant in writing of an intention to sue within the prescribed filing period, the time for bringing the action is deemed extended for one rental year. That notice is not an eviction order; its wording, recipient and delivery date matter. The lease may also contain a tenant-protective advance-notice condition. In E.2024/2446 K.2025/1440, 10 March 2025, the Court of Cassation resolved conflicting regional appellate approaches concerning the effect of non-compliance with such a condition. Not every reference to “termination” in a lease amounts to the same requirement: the actual clause must be read.

Mandatory pre-action mediation is another step. Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 applies to disputes arising from lease relationships; the exception for eviction through execution proceedings without a court judgment must be kept separate. In E.2025/1495 K.2025/3048, 26 May 2025, the Court of Cassation resolved divergent regional appellate decisions by requiring an Article 350 mediation application after the right to sue has arisen, within the filing window. Under Article 18/A of Law No. 6325, a limitation or forfeiture period does not run between the mediation application and the final record; the remaining time must then be calculated. Mediation begun before the relevant lease period ends should not simply be assumed to satisfy the pre-action condition.

Put the lease, service of any notice, mediation application, final record and court filing on one timeline. Strong evidence of need does not by itself cure a missed procedural deadline.

A purchaser has a different timetable. TCO Article 351 provides a route involving written notice to the tenant within one month after acquisition and an action after six months. It also provides a route involving an action within one month starting at the end of the lease term. The conditions for these routes should not be collapsed into the existing lessor’s Article 350 timetable.

Is the ten-year extension rule another need-based claim?

No. For a fixed-term residential or roofed-workplace lease, TCO Articles 347 and 348 do not allow the landlord to end the contract merely because its initial term has expired. After the ten-year extension period, the landlord may end the contract without stating a ground by giving written notice at least three months before the end of each following extension year. The calculation differs for an indefinite-term lease. Older contracts may also require an examination of transitional provisions.

Article 350 calls for a qualifying person’s need, proof and a timely action. Article 347 instead turns on the extension history and a written termination notice; it does not require proof of need. In E.2017/458 K.2021/614, 25 May 2021, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers considered the effect of a later new lease on the ten-year calculation. The majority set aside a judgment favouring eviction because, on those facts, the extension had to be calculated from the later new agreement. This does not make every rent-increase document or change of owner a new lease. The nature of the later document must be established.

Can the landlord re-let after eviction for need?

TCO Article 355 prohibits letting property vacated on the ground of need to someone other than the former tenant for three years, absent a justified reason. In the event of a breach, the statute provides compensation to the former tenant of not less than one year’s rent paid in the last rental year. But requesting eviction or later seeing someone else at the property does not establish every element of a compensation claim. How possession was surrendered, whether a new letting occurred and whether there was a justified reason require separate examination. The decisions discussed here do not constitute a comprehensive guide to every compensation issue under Article 355.

Conclusion

A need-based eviction claim starts not with “I own the property”, but with a consistent account of who needs it and why, supported throughout the case. The lease’s notice terms and the statutory timetable for filing and mediation must then be checked. A ten-year extension argument follows a different route: review the sequence of agreements and the written termination notice rather than using it as a shortcut around proof of need. If the tenant leaves, the restrictions on re-letting remain relevant.