In Which Cases Is an Eviction Undertaking Invalid?

When a lease agreement is made, the tenant may have been asked to sign an eviction undertaking separately. Is this document valid if the leased property has not yet been delivered? Does the outcome change if the date of issuance or eviction date was left blank during signing? To answer, one must look not only at the dates on the document but also at what stage it was given and how the parties' objections are proven.

An eviction undertaking is a document in which the tenant undertakes in writing to the lessor to vacate the leased property on a specified date. Article 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) requires this undertaking to be given after the leased property has been delivered. If the tenant does not vacate on the promised date, the lessor may request eviction within the period and procedure stipulated by law. This method is not the tenant's automatic removal on that day: When applying to the enforcement office for enforcement proceedings for eviction without a judgment based on the undertaking, a Sample No. 14 eviction order is served to the tenant; this document is not the same as the payment order in proceedings based on non-payment of rent. The lessor also has the option to file a direct lawsuit. TCO Art. 352/1; Article 272 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) and explanation of eviction order

Undertaking given before key delivery

If the tenant signed the eviction document before taking delivery of the property, the fact that a future departure date was written does not fulfill the delivery condition. For example, if the keys were not delivered on the day the contract was established, writing a future year's date as the eviction date alone does not make the undertaking valid. Here, the date the undertaking was given and the promised eviction date serve different purposes.

In the decision of Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber E.2023/9521 K.2024/2557 — 24.01.2024, an eviction clause was included in the lease agreement for a building to be constructed. The building had not yet been completed and delivered to the tenant. The regional court of appeal rejected the eviction request; the Supreme Court upheld the rejection, but based the reason for rejection on the delivery condition. The decisive passage, with an English translation, reads:

“henüz kiralanacak binanın tamamlanmadığı, tesliminin yapılmadığı ve kiracılığın başlamadığı”

English translation: “the building to be leased had not yet been completed, its delivery had not been made, and the tenancy had not begun”

— Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber, E.2023/9521 K.2024/2557, reasoning.

In another case, the lease agreement explicitly stated that the property would not be delivered without an undertaking being given. In the decision of Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber E.2025/2741 K.2025/5408 — 18.11.2025, this contractual provision was inconsistent with the claim that the undertaking was given after delivery. The Chamber deemed the undertaking invalid. However, the dispute was not directly an eviction lawsuit, but concerned a letter of guarantee cashed due to non-compliance with the undertaking. The facts and outcome of the decision should be read together.

What if the document states an issuance date after the contract? This alone does not resolve the objection that the signature was not actually made on that date. Contract provisions, documents showing actual delivery, and the parties' evidence regarding date objections are evaluated together. From here, we move to the issue of proof in documents with blank dates.

What happens if the date on the document is left blank?

Let's distinguish two dates: The date of issuance indicates when the undertaking was given; the eviction date indicates when the tenant will vacate. The tenant may have signed the document, and the dates may have been written later. In that case, the question is not merely “was it written later?”: Was the document actually given before delivery, or were the blank spaces filled contrary to the parties' agreement; can these be proven?

In the decision of Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers E.2017/975 K.2021/1108 — 28.09.2021, the tenant presented a signed but blank copy, claiming that the undertaking was obtained when the lease agreement was made. The first instance court's assessment also included the lessor's statements. However, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers did not find the acceptance that the lessor had to prove that the undertaking was given later to be correct; it overturned the resistance decision regarding the burden of proof on the tenant who made this claim. This result does not mean that every document signed with blank spaces is valid. It means that the claim that the date does not reflect the truth must be proven separately.

What proof changes is seen more concretely in the hotel lease in the decision of Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber E.2024/3413 K.2025/3541 — 25.06.2025. The tenant company denied the signature on the eviction undertaking and argued that the document was filled in later. Forensic examination determined that the signature belonged to the person authorized to represent the company. Thus, the question “whose signature is it?” was resolved; however, this was not an automatic answer to the question “is the date correct?”. The Chamber also took into account the absence of written proof for the claim of subsequent completion:

“tahliye taahhütnamesinin sonradan doldurulduğunun yazılı delille ispat edilememesine”

English translation: “the eviction undertaking could not be proven to have been filled in later by written evidence”

— Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2024/3413 K.2025/3541, reasoning on appeal.

The Chamber upheld the eviction judgment. The fact that the lease agreement stated that an undertaking would be given in the future did not indicate that the undertaking at hand was signed at the same time as the contract. In short, the decision does not say, “every undertaking with a blank date is valid”: The signature made on behalf of the company was identified, but the contrary claim regarding the date could not be proven in that file.

Up to this point, we have discussed documents that contain a specific eviction date but are claimed to have been written later. There is also the situation where the contract does not explicitly state the tenant's departure date from the outset. In the decision of Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber E.2020/1175 K.2020/2309 — 09.03.2020, the tenant had been in the property for years; in the renewed contract, the lease term was written as “3+2 years” and eviction was foreseen at the end of this period. This time, the issue was not whose signature it was or a date being filled in later. The Supreme Court overturned the eviction decision, stating that the expression in the contract did not contain the explicit eviction date required by TCO Art. 352/1:

“Tahliye taahhüdünde, tahliye tarihi belli (açık) bir şekilde yer almadığından Türk Borçlar Kanununun 352. maddesinin aradığı anlamda bir tahliye taahhüdünün varlığından bahsedilemez.”

English translation: “Since the eviction undertaking does not contain a definite (explicit) eviction date, an eviction undertaking in the sense sought by Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations cannot be mentioned.”

— Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber, E.2020/1175 K.2020/2309, reasoning.

Thus, the answers to two objections are different: A tenant who says “the written eviction date was added later” discusses how and when the date was added; a tenant who says “there is no specific eviction date in the document” discusses the content of the text. In one, the issue of evidence comes to the fore, in the other, whether the specific date required by law exists.

Why does the spouse's signature become an issue in family residences?

Let's consider a residence used by a family, where only one spouse signed the lease agreement. If the tenant spouse later gives an eviction undertaking alone, what is the consequence of the other spouse's signature not being on this document? This is the question of this section. Whether a family residence annotation is placed on the title deed is not the same process as the non-tenant spouse making a family residence notification to the lessor. Here, specifically, the effect of the second process, namely notification to the lessor, on the undertaking is examined.

According to Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), if a family residence is leased by one of the spouses, the spouse whose name is not in the contract becomes a party to the contract by making a notification to the lessor. TCO Article 349 also limits the termination of a lease agreement concerning a family residence without the explicit consent of the spouse. Therefore, the following timeline is first established: Who were the tenants initially in the lease agreement? When did the other spouse make a notification to the lessor? Was the eviction undertaking given before or after this? TCC Art. 194; TCO Art. 349

The decision of Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber E.2025/3374 K.2025/4997 — 20.10.2025 resolved the concrete question to which regional courts of appeal gave different answers: If the tenant spouse gives a valid undertaking, and then the other spouse makes a notification to the lessor and becomes a party to the contract, does the old undertaking become invalid? The Chamber’s reasoning, translated below, is clear:

“Verildiği tarih itibariyle geçerli olan tahliye taahhütnamesinin, kiracı olmayan eşin, kiraya verene sonradan yaptığı aile konutu bildirimi ile kira sözleşmesinin tarafı haline gelmesi nedeniyle, geriye etkili olarak geçersiz hale geleceğinin kabul edilmesi olanaklı değildir.”

English translation: “It is not possible to accept that an eviction undertaking, which was valid as of the date it was given, would become retroactively invalid due to the non-tenant spouse subsequently becoming a party to the lease agreement through a family residence notification made to the lessor.”

— Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, E.2025/3374 K.2025/4997, IV. Reasoning.

The condition “valid as of the date it was given” in this sentence is important. If the tenant gave a valid undertaking after taking delivery of the property and while the other spouse was not yet a party to the contract, the notification made later by the other spouse does not retroactively invalidate that document. Conversely, if the spouses were co-tenants from the beginning or if the notification was made before the undertaking, we cannot use the same answer for a document given by a single spouse: the other spouse's joint undertaking or explicit consent is evaluated. The question of against whom the eviction proceedings or lawsuit will be conducted after the other spouse becomes a tenant through notification is also a separate issue from the validity of the old undertaking. It would not be correct to link these three issues to a single outcome merely by saying “the spouse did not sign” or “there is/is no family residence annotation”.

Which path is followed after the eviction date has passed?

The existence of a valid undertaking does not automatically lead to eviction even if the tenant does not vacate on the promised date. The lessor must choose a path by observing the one-month period starting from the eviction date in TCO Art. 352/1: They can apply to the enforcement office for enforcement proceedings for eviction without a judgment based on the undertaking, or they can file an eviction lawsuit. In enforcement proceedings, the document sent to the tenant is Sample No. 14 eviction order; it is not a payment order. How the proceedings will continue if the eviction order is objected to is evaluated separately. TCO Art. 352/1; Eviction order in Article 272 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK)

The lessor can apply to the enforcement office or file a lawsuit for eviction within one month from the promised eviction date. If they choose the lawsuit path, and notify the tenant in writing within this period that they will file a lawsuit, the lawsuit filing period is deemed to be extended by one lease year according to TCO Art. 353. This notification to the tenant does not substitute for enforcement proceedings. TCO Art. 353; discussion on period

For example, in the hotel lease mentioned above, the proceedings initiated on 28.01.2021 for the eviction date of 31.12.2020 were accepted as being within the period. This example also shows that the date of the request to initiate enforcement proceedings and the eviction order subsequently served to the tenant are different stages. Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber E.2024/3413 K.2025/3541 — 25.06.2025

Conclusion: When you encounter an eviction undertaking, first determine when the tenant took delivery of the property, then when and by whom the undertaking was actually signed. If the dates in the document are left blank, distinguish which date is being disputed with which claim: A specific eviction date claimed to have been filled in later is not the same issue as a text that contains no specific eviction date at all. In family residences, separately examine when the other spouse became a party to the contract. If the undertaking is valid, check whether the tenant vacated on the promised day and when the request to initiate enforcement proceedings, the lawsuit, or the written notification affecting the time to sue was made. This way, you can separate the validity of the document from the procedure by which eviction can be requested based on a valid document.