Eviction Action Based on Need

First published: January 18, 2022 | Content updated: October 13, 2026

An eviction action based on need (ihtiyaç nedeniyle tahliye davası) is an action in which the landlord, or a person who later acquired the immovable, requests that the leased premises be vacated because of a genuine housing or business-premises need of the persons specified in the law. It is not enough for the landlord merely to say “I will live there myself.” The need must be genuine, sincere and compelling; it must be asserted by the right person at the right time; and mediation, which is a condition precedent to litigation, must also be completed properly. In residential and roofed commercial-premises leases, the basic provisions are Articles 350, 351, 353 and 355 of Law No. 6098, the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). (S1)

For the landlord, the most important risks are missing the notification and filing deadlines, asserting the need in the name of the wrong person, and applying to mediation too early. For the tenant, mistaking the formal notice (ihtarname) for an eviction judgment, letting the response period pass, or leaving rights unclear when handing over the premises can have serious consequences. This guide explains together the routes of the current landlord and of the new owner, proof, the proceedings, and the ban on re-letting after eviction.

Can a Landlord File an Eviction Action Because of Need?

The landlord may file an eviction action if the conditions in TBK Article 350 are met. However, the expiry of a fixed-term residential or roofed commercial-premises contract does not, by itself, give the landlord the right to remove the tenant. Under TBK Article 347, if the tenant does not give notice, the contract as a rule is extended by one year. The assertion of need is one of the exceptions provided by law to this protection; it does not automatically confer a power of eviction. (S1, Arts. 347 and 350)

An action based on need is not the same route as determination of rent, eviction for non-payment of rent, enforcement proceedings based on an eviction undertaking, or termination at the end of the ten-year extension period. Each has its own conditions and time limits. That the rent is below the market level does not, by itself, constitute a ground of need. If the real subject of the file is the rent amount, the conditions of another legal route cannot be bypassed by using need as the stated ground.

These explanations concern residential and roofed commercial-premises leases. The same time-limit table should not be applied directly to vacant land, produce leases (ürün kirası), or places that by nature are reserved for temporary use and fall within the exception in the law. The nature of the immovable and the actual manner of use must be examined as much as the title of the contract. (S1, Art. 339)

For Whose Need Can the Action Be Filed?

TBK Articles 350 and 351 regulate the housing or business-premises need of the landlord or the new owner personally, of the spouse, descendants and ascendants, and of other persons whom the landlord or new owner is legally obliged to support. Children and grandchildren are examples of descendants; mother, father, grandmother and grandfather are examples of ascendants. Not every kinship relationship by itself constitutes a ground for an action. (S1)

In a need asserted for a sibling, relying only on the sibling relationship is not enough. The concrete conditions of the statutory duty of care or assistance are also assessed. Article 364 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) regulates the maintenance obligation with respect to ascendants, descendants and siblings who would fall into poverty if not assisted, and, for siblings, additionally the condition of prosperity. The list in the law cannot be extended on grounds of personal closeness for a friend, cousin or distant relative. (S4)

Does the Landlord Have to Be the Same Person as the Owner?

In TBK Article 350, the right to bring the action is granted to the landlord. For this reason, the party to the lease and the title owner in the land registry must be identified separately. Being the title owner does not mean that questions of status as a party and representation are automatically resolved in every file. The new owner becomes a party to the lease under TBK Article 310 and may use the options in Article 351 in asserting need. (S1)

Where there are several landlords, tenants, co-owners or heirs, the parties must be identified completely in the action and in mediation. In co-ownership in shares, TMK Article 691, which regulates the majority of shares and co-owners for important management matters, and, in joint ownership, the principles of acting together and representation in Article 702 are significant. This area cannot be treated as “I have a share, so I can have everyone evicted alone.” The lease, the land registry record, the certificate of inheritance and the authority of representation must be examined together. (S4)

How Is the Need of an Individual Distinguished from That of a Company?

There is a difference between an individual landlord asserting the need of a company with a separate legal personality as his or her own need, and a landlord company relying on its own business-premises need. In its decision of May 7, 2026, E. 2025/6063, K. 2026/2872, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), by majority, upheld the dismissal of an action brought by individual owners on account of the need of the limited liability company of which they were shareholders. The decision includes a dissenting opinion; the view of the dissent should not be presented as the rule accepted by the majority. (S13)

By contrast, in the same Chamber’s decision of April 21, 2026, E. 2025/4210, K. 2026/2392, an eviction judgment was upheld, with the landlord company’s need for the adjacent leased premises, arising from the inadequacy of its existing production area, being accepted as proven through capacity reports and witness statements. This decision does not mean that every wish for growth is sufficient. Business volume, inadequacy of the space, the usage plan, and the suitability of the leased premises to meet this need must be made concrete. (S14)

The Need Must Be Genuine, Sincere and Compelling

For a need to be genuine, the living or working conditions on which it is based must actually exist in concrete form. Sincerity concerns the consistency between the stated purpose and the party’s conduct. Necessity refers to there being serious and reasonable grounds for needing to use the leased premises. The plaintiff is not expected in every case to become homeless or to have no other option; on the other hand, a mere wish to obtain higher rent is not sufficient.

The need must exist on the date the action is filed and continue throughout the proceedings. A distant future plan whose realization is uncertain is not the same as a need that has become concrete. The ending of the need during the action also affects the assessment. Developments such as a change in health, the person in need moving to another residence, or abandonment of a business plan must be reflected in the file.

A Child’s Marriage or Wish to Live Separately

A child’s marriage, studies, relocation to the city where he or she will work, or wish as an adult to live independently may form the basis of an assertion of need. However, a vague possibility such as “my child may marry in the future” is distinguished from a marriage plan whose date and preparations have become concrete. The current residence of the person in need, the workplace or school, and the suitability of the residence sought to be used are assessed together.

In its decision of October 23, 2015, E. 2014/224, K. 2015/2354, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) accepted the wish of an adult plaintiff living with his or her mother to live in a separate residence. The decision emphasizes that an adult cannot be forced to live with his or her mother or father. This principle shows that the need for independent living cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being unmarried; the parties, the time and the other conditions of each file are still examined separately. (S11)

Does Having Another Residence Bar the Action?

The existence of other immovables is an important subject of examination, but by itself it is not an automatic ground for dismissal. Whether the other residence is vacant, its suitability for use by the person in need, its size, floor, accessibility, connection to work and school, and its legal and actual state of use are investigated. A residence’s appearing in the land registry does not show that it can be used immediately and in a manner suitable for the same need.

For example, an upper-floor residence without an elevator for a person with limited mobility and an accessible residence may not meet the same need. On the other hand, the existence of a vacant and suitable residence in the same area may require an explanation of why the place used by the tenant is particularly wanted. Both the plaintiff and the tenant must substantiate their assertions about alternative immovables with address and usage information.

Need of a Person Living Abroad and of a Summer-House User

Living abroad does not automatically remove the need for housing in Türkiye. Preparation for permanent return, retirement, regular family life, health conditions, or seasonal use that has continuity are assessed separately. A vague wish asserted on the mere possibility of a short visit and use of a summer house that has become part of the way of life should not be treated as the same.

In its decision of January 12, 2015, E. 2014/13336, K. 2015/39, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed a summer-house need, on the particular facts, as a continuation of the need for permanent housing. Accordingly, that the place will not be used throughout the year is not by itself a ground for dismissal. Nor can it be said that this decision automatically makes every residence abroad or holiday request accepted; the nature of the use and the concrete evidence are decisive. (S12)

Business-Premises Need and the Reconstruction Ground

In a business-premises need, the activity to be carried out, the existing working area, the reason for moving and the technical characteristics of the leased premises must be explained. In activities requiring a license, the suitability of the immovable for that activity matters; in production or storage, the space, access, capacity and security requirements matter. An on-site examination and expert review may be needed. Submitting only a trade registry record does not mean that all conditions of need have been proven. (S14)

The reconstruction and zoning ground in TBK Article 350/2 is an eviction ground separate from personal need. Substantial repair, expansion or alteration must be necessary, and use of the leased premises must not be possible during the works. Simple painting, routine maintenance, or repair that can be done while use continues does not by itself meet the conditions of this special ground. Depending on the scope of the work, the project, license, technical report and on-site examination must show why use is impossible. (S1)

When Is an Eviction Action Based on Need Filed?

In calculating time limits, first the start of the contract, its agreed term, the extension periods and the chosen eviction ground are determined. Giving notice, applying to a mediator and filing the action are different acts. Doing one act within time does not automatically complete the conditions of another. It is not correct to count one month as thirty days in every case, or six months as one hundred eighty days.

Fixed-Term and Indefinite-Term Contracts

In a fixed-term contract, an action based on TBK Article 350 is not filed before the term ends. For this route, the law does not require in every case that a formal notice be sent one month before the end of the contract. Nevertheless, the valid contract provisions, the extension scheme and the importance of notification under TBK Article 353 are examined separately. The yearly extension of a contract does not automatically convert it into an indefinite-term contract. (S1, Arts. 347 and 350)

TBK Articles 328–329 apply to indefinite-term leases of immovables. In the absence of a contrary contract or local custom, a three-month termination notice period is taken as the basis for the end of a six-month rental period. If the notice period was missed, the following period may come into play. This calculation should not be automatically carried over to every fixed-term residential contract. (S1)

Extension of the Time Limit for Filing the Action Under TBK Article 353

If the landlord notifies the tenant in writing, no later than the time limit prescribed for filing the action, that an action will be filed, the time limit for filing the action is deemed extended for one rental year. The notification must express the intention to file the action in an understandable manner. It should not be assumed that a letter that merely requests a new rent or contains a vague invitation to talk produces the same result. (S1, Art. 353)

This provision does not provide unlimited time and does not remove the mediation requirement. The date, addressee, scope and the date of receipt by the tenant of the notification must be documented. Protection of the time limit should not be left to the last day, particularly where notification is disputed. The extension in TBK Article 353 and the new owner’s one-month notification obligation after acquisition are separate matters.

How Does a New Owner Request Eviction Because of Need?

The sale of the immovable does not automatically end the existing lease. The new owner becomes a party to the contract. If there is a need, the new owner must determine which of the two routes recognized by TBK Article 351 suits the case. The date of acquisition, the rental period and the notification of the formal notice directly affect this choice. (S1, Arts. 310 and 351)

One-Month Notification After Acquisition and the Six-Month Route

The new owner may file an action after six months, provided that the owner notifies the need to the tenant in writing within one month starting from the date of acquisition. It is not sufficient for the formal notice to be prepared at a notary within one month; the notification must reach the tenant within this period. For this reason, the date of dispatch and the date of notification must be recorded separately.

In its decision of September 27, 2017, E. 2017/4691, K. 2017/12812, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not consider sufficient a notice that had been sent within the one-month period after acquisition but was notified late. The Chamber also explained that it is not mandatory to file the action immediately at the end of the six months and that it may be filed until the end of the contract. Neither an unlimited time to sue nor an extra month automatically added to the end of the six months can be derived from this explanation. (S10)

Missing the one-month notification affects the six-month route based on acquisition. The new owner’s other option, based on the end of the contract term, must be examined separately. An application to mediation should not be used on the assumption that it replaces the content of this written notification under TBK Article 351 and its reaching the tenant within time.

The Option of Filing at the End of the Contract Term

If the new owner wishes, the owner may use the route of filing an action because of need within one month starting from the end of the contract term. For example, if the rental period ends shortly after the purchase, it cannot be said that the new owner must in every case wait six months from acquisition. For this, the conditions of the route that is actually based on the end of the contract must exist; the action and mediation calendar must be built according to this choice. (S1, Art. 351/2)

Features such as a lease right annotated in the land registry, special contract provisions, the nature of the acquisition and the existence of more than one owner may also affect the outcome of the file. Examining the lease and the land registry records before purchase reduces time-limit and use problems that are difficult to remedy later. (S1, Art. 312)

When Is Mandatory Mediation Carried Out?

Since September 1, 2023, disputes arising from a lease relationship, except for the exception in the law for eviction through enforcement proceedings without a judgment (ilamsız icra), fall within mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. For an eviction action based on need, this process is carried out before the action is filed. The obligation to apply is not an obligation to reach agreement. The mediator does not issue an eviction judgment; if no agreement is reached, the court resolves the dispute. (S2, Arts. 18/A–18/B)

For TBK Article 350, the Right to Sue Must Have Arisen

According to the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of May 26, 2025, E. 2025/1495, K. 2025/3048, which resolved a divergence (uyuşmazlığın giderilmesi), in need-based actions within TBK Article 350 mandatory mediation must be applied for after the right to file an eviction action has arisen and within the time limit for filing the action. An application made before the right to sue arises is not deemed to fulfill the procedural prerequisite. (S7)

For this reason, completing mediation before a fixed-term contract has ended and leaving only the action until after the term is not a safe method. In a file with an early application, the action should not be filed on the ground that “we already talked”; how to fulfill the procedural prerequisite in the correct time interval should be assessed. If there is a notification that extends the time, its effect must also be taken into account separately.

The New Owner’s Six-Month Route Is Assessed Separately

The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of October 21, 2025, E. 2025/3292, K. 2025/5039, clarifies this distinction. The Chamber stated that a decision had previously been given with respect to TBK Article 350, and that there was no difference in practice between the two regional court of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) decisions reviewed under Article 351/1, and ruled that there was no ground for a new decision. (S8)

This result cannot be read as “the Court of Cassation definitively treated as valid every mediation application the new owner made before six months had passed.” Likewise, the decision given for Article 350 should not be presented, without distinction, as the decision for all Article 351/1 files. The route chosen by the new owner, and the application and filing dates, must be examined together in the concrete file. To reduce timing disputes, making the application after the right to sue has arisen may be considered; this preference does not mean delaying the necessary notifications.

How Time Spent in Mediation Is Taken into Account

From the application to the mediation bureau until the final record is drawn up, the statute of limitations is suspended and the time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) does not run. The period continues with the portion remaining at the end of the process; a full new month is not given to everyone. Because the application date, the appointment date and the final record date differ, the calculation must be based on the correct record. (S2, Art. 18/A/15)

In its decision of December 3, 2025, E. 2025/2548, K. 2025/5852, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found it contrary to law that a dismissal was given on time-limit grounds without excluding the time spent in mediation. The decision is a reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma); it does not by itself remove the legal effects of the decision between the parties. The subject of this decision is the time limit; it is not an acceptance that the assertion of need is justified. (S9; S3, Art. 363)

For example, if mediation was applied for after the time limit for filing the action began to run, the days elapsed before the application are recorded; when the process ends, the remaining time is calculated. One should not act on the idea “mediation is over, I have another month” without looking at the month calculation, holidays and the effects of notification.

Final Record and Settlement Document

If agreement was not reached, the original of the final record or a copy certified by the mediator is attached to the petition. If mediation was carried out but only the record was not attached, the law provides for completion within a firm one-week period. If the action was filed without any application, it cannot be assumed that the same route of completing the deficiency is available; dismissal on procedural grounds because of the absence of the procedural prerequisite comes into play. (S2, Art. 18/A/2)

If agreement is reached, the eviction and key handover date, rent and ancillary costs, security deposit, condition of the contents, expenses and mutual claims must be stated clearly. In lease disputes, the requirement to obtain an annotation for the enforceability of the settlement document under Article 18/B should not be overlooked. A broad release or a clause waiving all rights may affect the outcome, particularly in a later claim of re-letting. (S2, Art. 18/B/3)

Court with Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and the Petition

In eviction actions based on need arising from a lease relationship, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi). An eviction action based on a personal right arising from a lease relationship is not accepted as falling within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction rules applicable to all immovable-property actions in Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) merely because it concerns an immovable. Territorial jurisdiction rules such as the defendant’s place of residence and the place of performance of the contract are examined together with whether a valid jurisdiction agreement exists. (S3, Arts. 4, 6, 10, 12 and 17)

In the petition, the start and term of the lease, status as a party, the identity of the person in need, when and why the need arose, the suitability of the immovable and the time-limit calculation must be explained clearly. In the new owner’s route, the acquisition and notification dates; in mediation, the application and final record dates must also be shown. The request for relief should be framed consistently with the eviction ground, and the evidence by which each important fact will be proved should be indicated.

Using a general petition template with the names changed does not correct a wrong legal route or a wrong period calculation. In particular, confusing Article 350 with Article 351, and personal need with the reconstruction ground, may cause a request that looks strong on the merits to meet a procedural problem.

By What Evidence Is the Need Proved?

The party relying on the need must prove the facts that support the claim. Evidence should be prepared not simply to submit many documents but to explain a specific disputed fact. How the witnesses know of the need, which period the documents belong to, and the actual situation of the person in need are important. (S3, Arts. 190 and 318; S4, Art. 6)

Health, family and economic documents should be shared only to the extent necessary. The date, address and context of advertisements and correspondence should be preserved; it should not be assumed that records obtained unlawfully can be used. Parties’ monitoring each other without permission or publishing the personal information of third persons is not a requirement of legal review.

How Can the Tenant Defend Against the Action?

The tenant may examine separately the plaintiff’s status as a party, the filing and notification time limits, the mediation requirement and the merits of the need. Concrete facts such as the current use by the person in need, suitable vacant residences, contradictory statements, earlier rent increase requests or preparation for re-letting may matter in the defense. However, the fact that a rent increase was discussed does not by itself invalidate every assertion of need; the whole of the case is assessed.

The simplified procedure applies in the civil court of peace. The response period is two weeks from notification of the petition. If the conditions are met, a one-time additional period of at most two weeks may be granted if requested within this period. Because the stages of reply petition and rejoinder petition do not exist in the simplified procedure, timely preparation of the defense and evidence is especially important. (S3, Arts. 316–319)

That the tenant has lived there a long time, pays rent regularly, has difficulty finding a new home or has economic hardship does not automatically bar the action based on need. There is also no general rule that eviction will be automatically postponed until the tenant’s need is met. A suitable moving period may be regulated by agreement of the parties; the statutory routes in the court and enforcement process are assessed separately.

Filing of the action does not automatically stop the obligation to pay rent and ancillary costs. While continuing the defense, the tenant must also monitor obligations arising from the contract. For the general framework of rights and obligations, the article “Obligations of the Landlord and Tenant” may also be reviewed.

How Long Does the Action Take and How Are Costs Determined?

There is no fixed duration for the conclusion of an eviction action based on need that applies to all files. Notification, hearing of witnesses, on-site examination, expert review, the court’s workload and the stages of legal remedies affect the duration. Definitive statements such as “it will certainly end in six months” or “every file takes two years” are unreliable.

The provision added to HMK Article 147 in 2026 provides that, except for exceptions such as expert review with stated reasons and letters rogatory (istinabe), the interval between hearings cannot exceed three months. This provision does not mean that the action will end in three months in total. In mediation, the three-week period from the appointment of the mediator may be extended by at most one week in cases of necessity; the result of the agreement or the proceedings is a separate matter. (S3, Art. 147/3; S2, Art. 18/A/9)

Costs consist of items such as filing and decision fees, advance on costs, notification, on-site examination, expert, attorney services if any, and the attorney fee award (vekâlet ücreti) that may be charged to the other party. Article 17 of the Law on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu) ties the decision and judgment fee in an eviction action to one year’s rent. This measure does not mean that all limits for legal remedies are also calculated on annual rent. A total cost cannot be given without seeing the current tariff, the request and the rent. (S6)

Litigation costs are as a rule charged to the unsuccessful party; partial success, special procedural provisions and the consequences of participation in mediation are assessed separately. A person without financial means may request legal aid if the conditions are met. The fee agreed with an attorney and the attorney fee award that the court may charge to the other party are not the same item. (S3, Arts. 323, 326 and 334; S2, Art. 18/A/11)

Applying Against the Judgment and Carrying Out the Eviction

Against a first-instance judgment, an appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) is requested, where available, within two weeks from proper notification of the reasoned judgment. An appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) against a judgment of the regional court of appeal is also subject to the two-week period where it is available. Whether the legal remedy is available is determined by the type and value of the judgment and by the monetary limits applicable on the relevant date. (S3, Arts. 341, 345, 361–362)

For other actions arising from a lease relationship, HMK Article 362/1-b contains an appeal criterion tied to three months’ rent. In addition, Article 362/3, added in 2026, introduces a conditional arrangement for appeal to the Court of Cassation against judgments given anew on the merits following acceptance, in whole or in part, of the appeal to the regional court of appeal. For this reason, one should not rely on an old monetary table or on the generalization that “eviction judgments are always final.” The conditions and exceptions of the new provision and the scope of the concrete judgment must be checked separately. (S3)

In eviction judgments arising from a lease relationship, applying for a legal remedy does not, as a rule, automatically stop enforcement. Separate action may be needed under the conditions of Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) for deferral of enforcement. In eviction under a judgment, Article 26 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulates handover within seven days by enforcement order. This period does not mean that everyone must leave within seven days after the landlord’s first formal notice. (S3, Arts. 350 and 367; S5)

Changing the lock by the landlord, removing the contents or cutting off electricity and water as pressure does not replace the court and enforcement route. If actual handover is to be voluntary, the date, keys, meters, existing condition and the parties’ requests should be set out in a written handover record.

Three-Year Ban on Re-Letting After Eviction

According to TBK Article 355, an immovable that has been vacated for the purpose of need cannot, unless there is a justified reason, be let to anyone other than the former tenant before three years have passed. This provision provides protection against the use of the need ground to obtain higher rent. In assessing the three years, the date of actual eviction and handover matters; it should not be confused with the date on which the formal notice was issued. (S1)

The justified-reason exception in the law must be made concrete with respect to serious changes the person in need encountered after eviction. Not every change of personal preference justifies letting the immovable immediately to a third person. Whether asserted events such as illness, death or compulsory relocation actually occurred, and their connection to the new letting, are examined.

The three-year provision, by its text, concerns re-letting; it is not by itself a general ban on sale. Nevertheless, a sale after eviction, use never beginning, or a rental advertisement posted immediately may matter with respect to the sincerity of the earlier assertion of need and the claims that may be raised. A definitive conclusion cannot be drawn in the form of “if a sale was made, compensation necessarily arises” or “if there is a sale, no right remains.”

The Former Tenant’s Right to Compensation

If the conditions for violating TBK Article 355 are met, compensation arises in favor of the former tenant, in an amount not less than one year’s rent paid in the last rental year. The lower limit is assessed not by the current higher rent obtained from the new tenant but by the rent the former tenant paid in the last rental year. If a higher claim exists, its basis and the calculation of loss must be explained separately. (S1)

For example, on the assumption that the former tenant paid a fixed 20,000 Turkish lira (TL) per month in the last rental year and all the conditions for compensation are met, the statutory lower limit is 240,000 TL. This is only a calculation example. The tenant does not deserve this amount in every case merely because of being evicted or having incurred moving costs; the violation and the manner of eviction are also examined.

An Important Distinction in Voluntary Vacating upon a Formal Notice

In the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of February 7, 2019, E. 2017/4956, K. 2019/871, the tenant had vacated the immovable upon a formal notice of need and later claimed compensation because of letting to a third person. The Chamber, noting that no eviction action had been filed and that the vacating did not occur through a court judgment or enforcement, did not consider the conditions of TBK Article 355 compensation to have been met. (S15)

Because of this precedent, one should not act on the idea “if I comply with the formal notice and leave, I will in every case receive one year’s rent.” On the other hand, the decision does not mean that all contractual or other legal claims of a person who left voluntarily disappear in every case. The settlement document, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, defect of intent and other bases of claim are examined under their own conditions. Before handing over the keys, it is important that the agreement and possible rights be assessed on the concrete file.

The Former Tenant’s Priority Right After Reconstruction

A place vacated for reconstruction and zoning cannot, in its former state, be let to anyone else before three years have passed without a justified reason. When the works are completed, the former tenant has a priority right to lease it in its new condition and at the new rent. This right must be exercised within one month following the landlord’s written notification; no letting to another may be made within three years without the priority right having ended. (S1, Art. 355/2)

In the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of January 19, 2016, E. 2015/7205, K. 2016/102, it was explained that this priority right does not give a right to compel the landlord by action to enter into a new contract and to have the rent determined. It was stated that the violation may result in compensation if its conditions are met. The priority right and the legal consequence that can be requested must therefore be distinguished from each other. (S16)

File to Prepare for Legal Assessment

In the initial review, the lease and its attachments, the current land registry record, all formal notices and notification documents, the mediation application record and final record, payment information, documents showing the situation of the person in need, and any action and enforcement papers should be considered together. Collecting the dates of lease start, acquisition, notification, mediation and action in a single timeline makes it easier to see which right is to be exercised within which time.

In the concrete file review carried out within the scope of the lease law services of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, both the landlord’s request and the tenant’s defense options are assessed according to the existing documents. This article is of a general informational nature; it does not guarantee a time limit or an outcome for a concrete dispute.

For related topics, see our articles on objection to an expert report, witness evidence in civil actions and mediation and alternative dispute resolution.

Conclusion

A successful legal assessment in an eviction action based on need combines proof of a genuine need with the right party, the right notification, the right mediation and the right action calendar. The new owner’s two separate routes, the timing of mediation under TBK Article 350 and the ban on re-letting after eviction require particular attention. For the tenant, too, separating the formal notice, action and enforcement documents from one another, and assessing the response period and the consequences of handover in time, helps prevent loss of rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is an Eviction Action Based on Need?

It is an action filed to have the leased premises vacated because of the genuine housing or business-premises need of a person specified in the law. The need, status as a party, time limit and mediation conditions are all required together.

Who Can File an Eviction Action Based on Need?

Under TBK Article 350, the landlord, and under Article 351, a person who later acquired the immovable, may file the action. The person in need must fall within the group of persons in the law, and in multi-party relationships the conditions of representation and acting together must be met.

What Conditions Are Required for Eviction?

A genuine, sincere and compelling need; suitability of the leased premises for this need; an application with the right parties and within time; and properly conducted mediation are required. Merely being the owner of the immovable or wanting a high rent is not sufficient.

What Are the Tenant’s Rights in This Action?

The tenant may defend regarding time limit, status as a party, mediation and the assertion of need; may submit evidence; and may apply to the available legal remedies. There is no automatic right to stay until a new home is found, or to automatic compensation because of eviction.

When Can the Action Be Filed?

In a fixed-term contract, the one-month filing period starting at the end of the term under TBK Article 350 is taken as the basis. Separate calculations are made for indefinite term, new owner, extension by written notification and time spent in mediation.

How Long Does an Eviction Action Based on Need Take?

No single period can be given. Notification, collection of evidence, on-site examination, expert, the court’s workload and the legal-remedy process are decisive. The rule on the interval between hearings is not the total time to conclusion of the action.

Which Evidence Is Required?

The lease, land registry and notification records, mediation documents and housing, medical, school, work or capacity documents suited to the type of need are important. Witnesses with concrete knowledge and, when necessary, an on-site examination may also be used.

What Should the Tenant Do When an Action Is Filed?

The tenant should record the date of notification, follow the response period of two weeks as a rule, and prepare the defense with its evidence. The obligation to pay rent does not stop simply because an action was filed.

Does Every Evicted Tenant Receive Compensation?

No. For compensation based on TBK Article 355, a violation of the ban on re-letting and the other relevant conditions are required. The Court of Cassation case law separately assessing voluntary vacating upon a formal notice must also be taken into account.

In What Cases Can the Action Be Dismissed?

Failure to prove the need, asserting it for the wrong person, failure to comply with the time-limit conditions, or the absence of the mediation procedural prerequisite may be among the grounds for dismissal. Whether the ground for dismissal concerns the merits or procedure affects later rights.

Can the General Statute of Limitations Be Relied On?

No. This action has special notification and filing time limits. Relying on the general statute of limitations on the ground that “there is no special time limit” may lead to loss of rights.

How Is the Action Started?

First the contract and the need are reviewed, the necessary notifications are made, and mediation is applied for at the right time. If no agreement is reached, the action is filed, within the remaining time, in the civil court of peace with subject-matter jurisdiction, with the final record and evidence.

Is It Necessary to Leave Immediately When a Formal Notice Arrives?

A formal notice is not a court judgment. Its content and time period should be assessed; if voluntary handover will be made, the date and the parties’ rights should be set out in writing.

Does the New Owner Always Wait Six Months?

No. Besides the six-month route with notification based on acquisition, there is also the option of filing within one month from the end of the contract term. It must be clear which route is used.

Is It Enough to Send a Formal Notice Within the One-Month Period?

The new owner’s TBK Article 351/1 notification must reach the tenant within one month. The notary preparation or postal dispatch date alone is not sufficient.

Is the Action Dismissed If the Landlord Has Another Residence?

Not automatically. The usability of the other residence and its suitability to the person in need are investigated. The existence of another vacant and suitable place may matter in the sincerity review.

Can Need Be Asserted for an Unmarried Child?

Yes. An adult’s need for independent living can be assessed; being married is not required. The need and the other conditions of the action must exist in the concrete case.

Can a Summer House or Seasonal Use Be a Need?

It can be in a concrete case. A summer-house need that is part of a way of life with continuity is distinguished from a vague and temporary wish to visit. Not using it throughout the year is not by itself a ground for dismissal.

Can a Company Shareholder Request Eviction for the Company?

The need of an individual landlord and that of a company with a separate legal personality are not treated as the same. The Court of Cassation majority decision of May 7, 2026 maintains this distinction. The landlord company’s own need is assessed separately.

Can Mediation Be Done Before the Contract Ends?

In need-based actions under TBK Article 350, the Court of Cassation accepts that an application made before the right to sue arises does not satisfy the procedural prerequisite. For the new owner’s Article 351/1 route, the scope of the relevant decision and the concrete calendar must be examined separately.

Does a New Month Start at the End of Mediation?

No. The time between the properly made application and the final record is not counted; a period that had already begun to run continues with its remaining part.

Does Objecting to the Eviction Judgment Stop Enforcement?

An appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) or to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) does not, as a rule, automatically stop enforcement. Separate action may be needed under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law for deferral of enforcement.

Does the Three-Year Ban Also Prevent Selling the House?

TBK Article 355 directly regulates re-letting. The effect of a sale on the sincerity of the earlier assertion of need and on other claims is assessed in the concrete case.

Against Which Rent Is the Lower Limit of Compensation Calculated?

If the conditions are met, the one-year rent paid by the former tenant in the last rental year is the basis. The rent paid by the new tenant is not automatically the statutory lower limit.

Does the Former Tenant Have Priority After Alterations?

After reconstruction and zoning within TBK Article 355/2, there is a priority to lease in the new condition and at the new rent. The right must be exercised within one month following the written notification; not every simple alteration falls within this provision.

Must One Wait Ten Years to File an Action Based on Need?

No. An action based on a genuine ground of need and termination without stating a reason at the end of the ten-year extension period are separate routes. The action based on need has its own period, time limit and procedural conditions.

Sources and legal bases

Source check date: October 13, 2026. The relevant provisions of the legislation and the official full texts of the decisions below were taken as the basis. Decision summaries should be read within the limits of the concrete case.

S1 — Law No. 6098, the Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Arts. 310–312, 328–329, 339, 347–355. Link to the source

S2 — Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 18/A and 18/B. Link to the source

S3 — Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, provisions on subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, proof, simplified procedure, costs, legal remedies and enforcement; with the 2026 amendments, Arts. 147/3 and 362/3. Link to the source

S4 — Law No. 4721, the Turkish Civil Code, Arts. 2, 6, 364, 691 and 702. Link to the source

S5 — Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy, Arts. 26 and 36. Link to the source

S6 — Law No. 492 on Fees, Art. 17. Link to the source

S7 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, May 26, 2025, E. 2025/1495, K. 2025/3048; timing of the mediation application under TBK Article 350. Link to the source

S8 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, October 21, 2025, E. 2025/3292, K. 2025/5039; separation of Article 350 from the new owner’s Article 351/1 route, no ground for a new decision. Link to the source

S9 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, December 3, 2025, E. 2025/2548, K. 2025/5852; calculation of time spent in mediation, reversal in the interest of the law. Link to the source

S10 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, September 27, 2017, E. 2017/4691, K. 2017/12812; notification of the new owner’s one-month notice and the options for filing. Link to the source

S11 — Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, October 23, 2015, E. 2014/224, K. 2015/2354; an adult’s need for independent housing. Link to the source

S12 — Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, January 12, 2015, E. 2014/13336, K. 2015/39; summer-house need connected to a permanent way of life. Link to the source

S13 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, May 7, 2026, E. 2025/6063, K. 2026/2872; distinction between the need of an individual landlord and of a company, majority and dissent. Link to the source

S14 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, April 21, 2026, E. 2025/4210, K. 2026/2392; proof of a landlord company’s need to enlarge its business premises. Link to the source

S15 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, February 7, 2019, E. 2017/4956, K. 2019/871; voluntary vacating upon a formal notice and TBK Article 355 compensation. Link to the source

S16 — Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, January 19, 2016, E. 2015/7205, K. 2016/102; consequences of the former tenant’s priority right in reconstruction. Link to the source