Termination of residential and roofed-workplace lease contracts by notice (TCO art. 347)

In our study, we investigated the termination of residential and roofed-workplace lease contracts by notice. In this context, first of all, an attempt was made to determine the boundaries of practical area of the provisions specific to residential and roofed-workplace lease contracts found in the Turkish Code of Obligations. To that end, the concepts in Article 339 of the Turkish Code of Obligations were addressed, and the concepts of residence and roofed workplace were explained. It was concluded that the subject of residential and roofed-workplace lease contracts was a case of immovable property. It was determined that a residence and its surroundings would be enclosed by definition. It was found that the fact that the term "roofed" was not used in the relevant provision did not mean that the top of the residence (which would constitute the residential lease) might be open. Following the explanation of the general principles of residential and roofed-workplace lease contracts, which determined the boundaries of our study, the termination of such lease contracts was addressed. It was concluded that the notice found in Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulating the form of this termination was a notice of termination. The termination of the contract by the notice in question only if it was consolidated with the expiration term would not interfere with this legal nature. Then, the notices of the tenant and the landlord in the fixed-term residential and roofed-workplace lease contract were examined separately, together with the terms of the lease. Especially the period in which they could give a notice was addressed. It was found that the notice period of fifteen days granted to the tenant could be shortened but could not be extended. The decisions of the Supreme Court were also found to be in this direction in general. It was shown that the extension of a lease term for one year due to the tenant's failure to give a notice of termination would not mean that a new lease contract would go into effect. The effect of this extension of a lease term on the guarantees agreed in the preceding period was discussed. The onset of the ten-year extension period that must be completed in order to terminate the lease contract with a notice of termination by the landlord was discussed. In this regard, the decisions of the Supreme Court were also presented. It was concluded that the ten-year period would take effect after the expiration of the specific lease term. It was also concluded that the lease term could not be taken into account in the calculation of this ten-year period. Moreover, the legal nature of the regulation on the ten-year period in question (TCO Art. 347) was discussed, and it was concluded that the regulation was an absolute compulsory provision that had been made to ensure public order. The notices of the tenant and the landlord in the indefinite-term residential and roofed-workplace lease contract were also discussed separately, together with the terms of the lease. Especially the period in which they could give a notice was addressed. The six-month legal termination period and the three-month legal termination notice period were explained through some examples. It was concluded that the extension of the three-month legal notice period by the parties could not be accepted in case of the termination by the tenant. In addition, it was concluded that the termination by the landlord might be accepted since it did not create a situation against the tenant. Finally, it was explained that the notice of termination should be done in writing, that this form of notice was a form of validity, and that the failure to comply with it would result in nullity. Then, the legal consequences linked to the situation of renting a family residence were explained by discussing the concept of family residence.