Court of Jurisdiction for Tenancy Law Disputes

T.C.
COURT OF APPEALS
20th Civil Chamber
2018/6462
2019/558
Decision Date: 04.02.2019
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
COURT:Civil Court of Peace
In the case between the parties, due to the separate decisions of lack of jurisdiction given by the … 43rd Commercial and … 7th Civil Court of Peace, all documents in the file sent for the determination of the venue were examined and the necessary was considered:

DECISION

The case concerns the request for annulment of the objection made to the enforcement proceedings. … 43. The Commercial Court of First Instance ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the contract between the parties was a lease contract in nature, therefore the dispute between the parties arose from the lease contract, and that the Civil Court of Peace was designated as the court authorized to hear all disputes arising from the lease contract in accordance with Article … of the Civil Procedure Code…. The 7th Civil Procedure Court ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that since it was understood that there was no lease contract between the parties, the parties were merchants in accordance with the nature of the case, and that the competent and authorized court was … the Commercial Court of First Instance. According to Article …/… of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 in force on the date of the case, the civil courts of peace, regardless of the value or amount of the subject matter of the case; It is responsible for dealing with all disputes, including debt cases arising from the tenancy relationship, and the lawsuits filed against these lawsuits, with the exception of the provisions regarding the eviction of rented real estate through non-judicial execution pursuant to the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 dated 09/06/1932. In the present case, the plaintiff’s attorney claimed that his client had rented tower cranes owned by him to the defendant company and that the rental fees had not been collected for approximately … years … The 5th Enforcement Office initiated enforcement proceedings with the file numbered 2013/28983, upon the defendant’s objection, the proceedings were stopped, the defendant company official had called the client company official after the pursuit and before the objection, and declared that he would pay part of the debt with customer checks and the other part in cash, but this request was not accepted by his client, since his client’s receivable dates back … years, therefore, the defendant’s objection was unjust and bad-faith, and demanded and sued for the defendant’s objection to the enforcement proceedings to be annulled and the pursuit to be continued.

In the lawsuit petition, it is claimed that the main source of the case is a lease agreement, and since the duty to investigate and evaluate whether there is a written or verbal lease agreement between the parties and whether the dispute is within the scope of the said agreement belongs to the civil courts of peace with exclusive jurisdiction in lease disputes, the dispute must be heard and concluded in the civil court of peace.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above; in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100; … It was unanimously decided on 04/02/2019 that the 7th Civil Court of Peace BE DESIGNATED AS THE JURISDICTION.

T.R.
COURT OF APPEALS
20TH CIVIL DIVISION
E. 2016/2909
K. 2016/5380
D. 11.5.2016

CASE: In the case regarding the request for negative determination between the parties… All documents in the file sent for the determination of the venue were examined and its merits were considered due to the separate decisions of lack of jurisdiction given by the Commercial and Civil Courts of First Instance…

DECISION
The case is regarding the request for the determination that there is no debt due to the checks given to the defendant for the lease agreement between the parties… The Commercial Court of First Instance ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute arose from the lease agreement… The Civil Court of First Instance ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute arose from the bill of exchange.

According to Article 4/a of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011 and regulates the duties of the civil courts of peace, except for the provisions regarding the eviction of rented real estates through non-judicial execution in accordance with the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, all disputes, including claims arising from the tenancy relationship, and the lawsuits filed against these lawsuits fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Peace. Unlike the repealed Civil Procedure Law No. 1086, in this regulation, the place of resolution for all disputes arising from the tenancy relationship, such as eviction, claims, compensation, determination of the tenancy status, without any distinction of amount, is shown as the civil court of peace.

In the present case, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that a decision be made to determine that they are not indebted to the other party in terms of the checks delivered to the other party, which are the subject of the lawsuit, by stating that a total of 3 checks of 50,500.00 TL, the qualifications and amounts of which are specified in the lawsuit petition, were delivered to the other party as an advance payment in return for the rental of the specified work machines to his client in accordance with the work machine rental agreement previously concluded between his client and the defendant, however, the work machines in question were never delivered to his client in accordance with the said agreement, moreover, the invoices subject to the commercial relationship between the two were not issued, therefore, the checks delivered to the defendant remained unpaid. Since the dispute between the parties does not arise from the bills of exchange, but the basic relationship is a lease relationship, the dispute must be heard and concluded in the Civil Court of Peace.

RESULT: For the reasons explained above, in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, it was unanimously decided on 11/05/2016 that the Civil Court of Peace be DESIGNATED AS THE JUDICIAL COURT.

T.R.
ISTANBUL
REGIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
36TH CIVIL DIVISION

E. 2020/467
K. 2020/551
T. 27/02/2020

DECISION

…… Article 4/1-a of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 states that the Civil Courts of Peace shall hear all disputes, including claims arising from the lease relationship, and the lawsuits filed against these lawsuits, regardless of the value or amount of the subject matter of the lawsuit, except for the provisions regarding the eviction of rented real estates through non-judgmental execution pursuant to the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 dated 9/6/1932.

In our concrete case; the basis of the dispute is the lease agreement dated 15.05.2017 between the plaintiffs … and the defendants …, it is requested to determine that there is no debt due to the checks stated to be issued based on the lease agreement, the duty to hear the case belongs to the Civil Court of Peace regardless of the value of the case in accordance with Article 4/1-a of the Civil Procedure Code in force on the date of the case, the regulations regarding the duty are related to public order, it will be observed ex officio at every stage of the trial even if the parties do not put it forward, therefore, the decision of lack of jurisdiction given by the court is appropriate. Since it is understood that there is no procedural error affecting the merits in the decision of the first instance court, the factual findings were made completely and correctly, the substantive law norms were applied correctly, and no erroneous conclusion was reached in the evaluation of the evidence, it was necessary to decide to reject the appeal of the plaintiffs and the defendants’ attorney on the merits in accordance with Article 353/1-b-1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT: For the reasons explained above; 1-Since the decision of the first instance court was found to be in accordance with the procedure and law, the appeal application of the plaintiffs and the defendants’ attorney was REJECTED ON MERIT in accordance with Article 353/1-b-1 of the HMK. As a result of the examination of the file, a unanimous decision was made to be final in accordance with Article 362/1-b of the HMK. 27/02/2020