When a notice of eviction arrives for a municipal shop, kiosk, tea garden or other property, first determine whether a valid lease relationship still continues, which authority issued the notice, and whether the document is an enforceable eviction decision. Administrative eviction based on Article 75 of Law No. 2886 and a private-law dispute arising from the lease contract are not the same thing. As a rule, an annulment action may be brought against an administrative eviction act within 60 days. However, the eviction date may be much closer, so a request for a stay of execution should be assessed without delay.
Long-standing tenancy, the municipality accepting payments, or the premises having been licensed do not by themselves prevent eviction. Conversely, the claim that the lease term has expired does not by itself make every notice and every intervention by an authority lawful. Resolving the dispute requires the contract file and the administrative eviction file to be reviewed together.
Which eviction route applies to municipal property?
Article 15 of Law No. 5393 on Municipalities allows Article 75 of Law No. 2886 on State Tender Law to be applied to municipal property. That provision governs the eviction, at the administration's request, of an occupied property by the civil administrator (mülki amir) of the district where the property is located. The nature of an act of the district governorship (kaymakamlık) or the provincial governorship (valilik) is determined by the location of the property and the administrative organisation. For cases in which the public-property character of the premises is disputed, see Title Cancellation Claims Involving the Treasury and Public Property: Pastures, Roads, Old Title Deeds and Time Limits.
Disputes may also arise from the interpretation of the lease contract, rent receivables, security deposits, contractual compensation or eviction based on private-law provisions. The fact that a municipality is a party does not automatically bring every dispute before the administrative courts. What matters is which act or receivable is the subject of the action.
| Dispute | Main review | Approach to the route of action |
|---|---|---|
| Eviction decision by the civil administrator under Article 75 of Law No. 2886 | Conditions of occupation, authority, property and user | As a rule, an annulment action in the administrative courts |
| Receivable arising from the lease contract or private-law eviction | Contract, lease relationship and related special provisions | As a rule, the civil courts; jurisdiction and conditions of action are determined separately |
| Compensation for unjust occupation notice (ecrimisil ihbarnamesi) | Authority, period of use, area and amount | Assessed as an administrative act separate from the eviction |
| Revocation of licence or sealing | Licence conditions of the activity | A separate administrative dispute from the right of use |
In disputes arising from private-law lease relationships, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation may come up, subject to the statutory exceptions. This system is not a general precondition for an annulment action against an administrative eviction act. Applying to the wrong route does not in every case protect the time limit running for an administrative action.
Why is the expiry of the lease term decisive?
Contract, tender and handover documents must be read together
It must be established under which tender, for what period and for what purpose the municipal property was leased. The end date in the contract, the handover date, the competent authority's decision on extending the term and any new contract are different documents. The fact that use began on a given date cannot in every case be treated as the start of the lease.
The first page of the contract is not sufficient on its own. General and special specifications, prohibition of assignment, purpose of use, renewal conditions and the obligation to surrender the property at the end of the term may all affect the dispute. It should also be examined whether a billing record issued by the municipality for a specific period concerns rent, compensation for unjust occupation or some other claim.
Does acceptance of payment renew the contract automatically?
Acceptance of payment should not be treated as a valid renewal without examining the decision of the competent body and the tender rules that apply. Because special rules govern the management of public property, deriving an automatic extension from a lease between private persons may be wrong. Conversely, where a new lease actually concluded by the competent authority, or a continuing valid contract, exists, the assessment of unauthorised occupation (fuzuli şagil) should be made accordingly.
For example, an operator may have paid "rent" into a bank account of the municipality, with the description "rent payment", for six months after the contract expired. These payments matter for the administration's knowledge and for the nature of the collection; however, on their own they do not create a new tender or a valid contract. The review cannot be confined to the payment description.
Change of tenant and transfer of business
Taking over a business from a former tenant company does not necessarily mean that the lease right against the municipality was validly transferred as well. A change in company shareholding, a transfer of the business, a sub-lease and an assignment of the contract are different legal transactions. When determining who the eviction is directed at, the trade registry, the contracting party and the actual user are assessed together.
The municipality's long-standing awareness of the use does not by itself make an unauthorised transfer lawful. However, the administration's written permissions, its competent decisions and the acts directed at the user are important parts of the file. Presenting the documents in chronological order clarifies conflicting descriptions such as "tenant", "occupier" and "operator".
Can an action be brought against every municipal eviction letter?
For an annulment action before the administrative courts, there must be a final and enforceable act. A municipal notice that the lease term will expire, a reminder that the property must be vacated, or an announcement that the municipality will apply to the district governorship is not the same as a directly enforceable eviction decision. The content and legal effect of the letter are examined, not its heading.
A phrase such as "vacate as soon as possible" may in some files be accepted as a mere reminder. By contrast, a decision stating that forcible eviction will take place on a specific date and directed at implementation may have a different result. Generalisations such as "no action can ever be brought against a municipal letter" or "every letter mentioning eviction becomes the subject of an annulment action" should be avoided.
If several letters have been served on the operator, each should be recorded separately. The service dates of a municipal executive committee (encümen) decision, a civil administrator's decision, a police notice and a compensation notice may all differ. An action against one act does not make another act automatically the subject of the case. Where necessary, the connection between the acts and the conditions for bringing them together are assessed separately.
Unlawfulness as to authority, occupation and procedure
The legal conditions must be met before the eviction power under Article 75 of Law No. 2886 can be exercised. It must be investigated whether the property belongs to the municipality or the municipality has the power to make the request, whether the lease relationship has ended, and whether the area to be vacated is the same as the area in the contract.
As to authority, the municipality's direct eviction decision must be distinguished from its request to the civil administrator. The power the law gives to the civil administrator is not exercised in the same way merely because the municipal executive committee has taken a decision. Nevertheless, where an act is annulled for a defect of authority, the administration may be able to establish a new act once the legal conditions are met. An annulment does not always provide an indefinite right of use.
Errors concerning the area and the user are also important. The legal status of the 60 square metre kiosk stated in the lease contract and of the open area next to it may differ. One part may belong to the municipality and another to the Treasury, so a claim to the whole area under a single contract may not be sustainable. The eviction sketch should therefore be compared with the title deed and the contract sketch.
How are the time limit for action and the stay of execution assessed?
Where no specific period is provided, the general 60-day filing period applies to an administrative eviction act, counted from the day after written notification. In calculating the period, Articles 7 and 8 of İYUK are considered; where electronic notification exists, the relevant notification rules are taken into account. The competent court for an administrative dispute concerning the property is determined under Article 34 of İYUK.
The phrase "within at most 15 days" in Article 75 of the Law regulates the civil administrator's carrying out of the eviction; it should not be used as the period within which the person concerned must bring an annulment action. However, the existence of a 60-day filing period does not guarantee that the property can be used until the end of that period. Legal protection may need to be requested before the day of eviction.
A properly made administrative application under Article 11 of İYUK may suspend the filing period; however, that application does not automatically stop the eviction. The implied rejection that arises if no reply is given within thirty days, and the remaining filing period, must be calculated separately. Where eviction is imminent, merely waiting for an administrative reply may not provide practical protection.
For a stay of execution, a clear unlawfulness and damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy must be explained together. The damage caused by closing a business may be shown through the number of employees, perishable stock, installations that are hard to move, existing contracts and concrete records of activity. These documents do not replace the contract and authority documents that prove a valid right of use exists. Economic loss and unlawfulness are shown separately.
Why are compensation for unjust occupation, licence and eviction separate acts?
A licence to open and operate a workplace shows the relevant administrative conditions of the activity; it does not provide a lease or ownership right over the property. Likewise, the payment of compensation for unjust occupation does not replace a licence or a lease contract. An error in one act does not automatically invalidate all the other acts. For the route to follow if a licence is revoked, see also Revocation and Restoration of a Workplace Licence.
For example, the eviction decision may have been issued by an unauthorised authority, and yet compensation for unjust occupation may arise for unauthorised use of the property after the lease term. Conversely, correcting an area error in the compensation calculation does not renew an expired contract. The petition must distinguish these matters, and the outcome sought must be stated clearly for each act.
A late-delivery penalty in the contract and compensation for unjust occupation are not in every case the same claim. Whether the amount is a fee for use or a contractual penalty is determined from the contract. The approach "the municipality has already demanded a penalty, so it cannot claim any other sum" cannot be accepted without examining the concrete legal nature of the amount.
Actual Council of State decisions
Direct eviction decision of the municipal executive committee and separate compensation assessment
In the decision of the Council of State (Danıştay) 4th Chamber dated June 4, 2024, E.2023/8994, K.2024/3701, eviction and compensation proceedings were examined following the expiry of the lease term of a municipal tea garden. The Chamber adopted the assessment that eviction should be carried out through the civil administrator and upheld the part of the judgment annulling the eviction act. However, it reversed the part of the judgment that annulled the compensation by treating the daily contractual penalty as a fee for use. The decision shows that eviction and compensation may lead to different results even within the same file. [1]
Eviction reminder in a compensation notice
In the Council of State 4th Chamber decision dated April 10, 2025, E.2024/20, K.2025/2237, the statement on vacating the property contained in a compensation notice was also assessed. In that case, the statement was not regarded as an independent and final eviction act, and the rejection of the claim against that part without examination was upheld. The decision shows the risk of suing a mere reminder instead of an enforceable eviction decision by the civil administrator. However, the same outcome cannot automatically be drawn for every municipal letter with different content. [2]
How should the eviction file be prepared?
At the outset, a short chronology should be prepared: the tender date, the start and end of the contract, extension decisions, payments, the first eviction request, the civil administrator's decision, service and the planned implementation date. A supporting document should be attached beside each date. In this way it becomes clear which document supports the claim of a continuing lease relationship.
If the property has already been vacated, this should also be recorded through minutes, a handover document and images. Completion of the eviction does not by itself remove all the consequences of the case; a continuing legal interest and any claims for damages are assessed separately. For compensation, the unlawfulness of the act is required together with the damage and the causal link. An annulment action alone does not ensure payment of all business losses.
Conclusion
In an eviction from municipal property, the decisive question is not the lease end date alone. The valid right of use, the competent authority, the act that can be sued and the imminent implementation date must be examined together. Separating compensation for unjust occupation, licence and contractual claims determines the correct route of action. Recording every document that has been served and, in urgent cases, preparing a request for a stay of execution supported by concrete documents are the basic steps in asserting one's rights.
Related articles: Objection to Municipal and Treasury Compensation Notices: Fee Calculation, Annulment Action and Stay of Execution; Refusal of a Workplace Opening and Operating Licence: Rejection of the Application, Delay and Routes of Action; Objection to Licence and Occupancy Fees Demanded by the Municipality: Charges, Participation Fee and Refund of Overpayment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the municipality evict if it continues to accept rent?
Acceptance of payment alone does not constitute a valid renewal. The competent decision, the contract, the tender rules and the actual nature of the collection are examined together.
Do I have to bring an action within fifteen days?
The 15-day provision in Article 75 of Law No. 2886 is not the general period for an annulment action. However, since the eviction may be carried out during this process, waiting until the end of the general 60-day period may not be appropriate.
Does filing an annulment action stop the eviction?
No. Filing the action does not by itself stop the eviction. Where the conditions are met, a stay of execution may be requested from the court.
Does having a workplace licence protect my right of use?
A licence does not replace a lease or ownership right. The legal bases of the licence and of the right to use the property are assessed separately.
If the eviction act is annulled, do I become an indefinite tenant?
No. The ground of annulment is decisive. In particular, where an authority or procedural defect is remedied, a new act may be established.
Sources and legal bases
- Council of State (Danıştay) 4th Chamber, June 4, 2024, E.2023/8994, K.2024/3701 — official decision text.
- Council of State 4th Chamber, April 10, 2025, E.2024/20, K.2025/2237 — official decision text.
- Law No. 2886 on State Tender Law, especially Article 75; Law No. 5393 on Municipalities, especially Article 15.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), Articles 7-8, 11, 27-28 and 34 — consolidated text.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Article 18/B; Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure, Article 4.
Legal research date: October 14, 2026. The explanations are for general information only; a definite time limit or outcome cannot be determined without examining the concrete contract and eviction file.