A landlord’s statement that the property will be used by the landlord or their child is not, by itself, sufficient to obtain eviction on grounds of need. The court assesses whether the asserted need is genuine and sincere by reference to the actual circumstances of the intended occupier’s life. However, recognition of that need does not require the person to become homeless or their current living arrangements to become intolerable. The central issue is whether there is a present need to use the property in practice.
The Requirement Of A Genuine Sincere And Necessary Need
Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations recognises the landlord’s need for residential or business premises for themselves, their spouse, descendants, ascendants or other persons whom they are legally obliged to support as a ground for eviction. Article 351 also provides a right to bring a claim based on need for an owner who subsequently acquires the property. However, ownership or a family relationship does not replace proof of the asserted need.
As emphasised in the judgment of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 08.01.2025, Case No. 2024/1007, Decision No. 2025/97, the need must be genuine, sincere and necessary. It must exist when the claim is brought and continue throughout the proceedings. A temporary need, a need that has not yet arisen or one whose fulfilment depends on events in the distant future is insufficient to justify eviction. Accordingly, an intention to retire, marry or move to another city in the future cannot be assessed in the same way as a concrete plan to use the property.
Necessity in this context does not simply mean the absence of any other accommodation. The intended occupier’s personal and family circumstances must be considered together with the property’s suitability for meeting those needs.
Living In Rented Accommodation And Establishing A Separate Home
The fact that the intended occupier rents another home is an important factor supporting a request to use their own home. In its judgment dated 24.06.2014, Case No. 2014/6610, Decision No. 2014/8287, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not interpret a newly married daughter’s renting another flat as bringing her need to an end. Instead, it treated her living in rented accommodation as giving rise to a presumption of need. Renting another property because the tenant has not vacated does not, in itself, undermine the asserted need.
Similarly, an adult’s ability to live with their family does not rule out a need for a separate home. In its judgment dated 30.10.2013, Case No. 2013/12007, Decision No. 2013/14454, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted that a 26-year-old university graduate in employment could not be compelled to live with his mother, also taking into account the property’s proximity to his workplace. Dismissing the wish to live separately as a mere preference may therefore overlook the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, it must still be established that the intended occupier genuinely plans to move in and that the asserted use reflects a present need.
Does Ownership Of Another Property Eliminate The Need
Owning more than one property is different from having a vacant, available property capable of meeting the need. Not every property registered in the land registry constitutes a suitable home that can actually be made available to the intended occupier. Its occupancy status, size, location and suitability for that person’s circumstances are relevant.
Indeed, in its judgment in Case No. 2014/6610, Decision No. 2014/8287, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that ownership of only a one-fifth share in another home did not establish the availability of a separate home capable of meeting the need, since its use depended on the consent of the other co-owners.
Conversely, letting another property after it becomes vacant, where it could meet the asserted need, calls for an explanation. In its judgment dated 26.02.2018, Case No. 2018/619, Decision No. 2018/1605, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that a decision could not be reached without investigating who owned the flat alleged to have become vacant and been re-let, when it was let and whether it could meet the need. Accordingly, ownership of another property is not an automatic ground for dismissing the claim, but neither is the way those properties are used irrelevant.
Consistency Between Previous Statements And The Asserted Need
Formal notices, correspondence between the parties and previous requests to vacate are relevant to assessing the sincerity of the need. In particular, the relationship between an intention to sell the property or let it at a higher rent and the asserted need for personal occupation must be examined.
The judgment of the 35th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal dated 10.03.2026, Case No. 2024/3362, Decision No. 2026/722, is instructive. The landlord initially sought possession on the basis that the property would be sold, then relied on his son’s housing need approximately two months later. The failure to prove what had changed in the intervening period, together with shortcomings in the way the need was pleaded and supported by evidence, led the appellate court to uphold the dismissal of the claim.
This judgment does not mean that a claim based on need is unavailable whenever the sale of a property was previously contemplated. What matters is whether the change in circumstances can be explained and the subsequently asserted need supported by consistent evidence. Just as a tenant’s unsupported objection that the need is insincere may be insufficient, so too may a landlord’s reliance solely on their own statement.
Suitability And Comparison In Claims Concerning Business Premises
The assessment of residential need should not be applied unchanged to disputes concerning business premises. In particular, where the intended occupier conducts their business from other rented premises, the characteristics of the existing premises and those sought to be recovered become important.
According to the judgment of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 08.01.2025, Case No. 2024/1007, Decision No. 2025/97, in such circumstances it is sufficient for the intended occupier either to face a threat of eviction or for the premises sought to be better suited to the proposed business than the existing premises, or at least equivalent. Both conditions need not be met together. Where the premises are equivalent, priority is given to the right of ownership. Where necessary, the comparison should be conducted through an on-site inspection and examination by an expert appointed by the court.
Establishing Need Through Concrete Evidence
In eviction claims based on need, the decisive issue is not how the need is described, but the facts supporting it. The existing tenancy agreement, residential and working circumstances, family arrangements, the use of other properties and witness evidence should consistently substantiate the same need. A change in the intended use during the proceedings, or the need being met elsewhere, also affects the assessment.
Preparing a claim should therefore involve more than issuing a formal notice asserting need. When the need arose, why this particular property is required to meet it and how it accords with previous statements should be established from the outset. For the landlord, proving a genuine need, and for the tenant, identifying concrete facts inconsistent with that need, form the substance of the dispute.
For information about our services concerning the assessment of tenancy disputes, legal advice and the conduct of litigation, please contact us.