Rent Paid, Utilities Unpaid: Can a Tenant Still Be Evicted? A Review of the Turkish Court of Cassation's Recent Ruling

When people think of eviction in a landlord-tenant relationship, the first thing that comes to mind is unpaid rent. But a different scenario arises frequently in practice: the tenant pays the base rent in full and on time, yet fails to pay the ancillary expenses the lease assigns to them — electricity, water, or the building's common-area/maintenance fee (aidat). Can the landlord seek the tenant's eviction based solely on the non-payment of these ancillary expenses?

This question was debated for years among the chambers of the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and in legal doctrine. The Court of Cassation's General Assembly of Civil Chambers (Hukuk Genel Kurulu — "HGK"), in its ruling dated 2 July 2025 (Case No. 2024/785, Decision No. 2025/426), put — for now — a definitive end to that debate. This article reviews the facts of the case, the Court's reasoning, the dissenting opinion, and the practical implications of the ruling.

1. Legal Framework: The Rent Debt and Ancillary Expenses

Article 314 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), Law No. 6098, sets out the tenant's payment obligation as follows:

"Unless otherwise agreed or established by local custom, the tenant is obliged to pay the rent — and, where applicable, the ancillary expenses — at the end of each month and at the latest by the end of the lease term."

As the text shows, the law treats rent and ancillary expenses together from the outset. TBK Article 315, on tenant default, provides:

"If the tenant fails to perform an obligation to pay rent or ancillary expenses that has become due after delivery of the leased property, the landlord may give the tenant a written notice granting a period to remedy the default, stating that the lease will be terminated if performance is not made within that period. The period granted to the tenant must be at least ten days, or at least thirty days in the case of residential and roofed-workplace leases."

The use of the phrase "rent or ancillary expenses" is the starting point of the debate: the legislator appears to treat non-payment of ancillary expenses as an equally valid ground for default (and therefore termination) as non-payment of rent itself.

By contrast, Article 269/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), Law No. 2004, which governs eviction through non-litigious enforcement proceedings, uses narrower wording:

"If the debtor does not object and fails to pay the rent debt within the notice period, the creditor may, within six months following the end of that period, request the enforcement court to order eviction."

İİK Article 269/a refers only to "rent debt," without repeating the "or ancillary expenses" language found in TBK Article 315. This textual gap is the source of a years-long disagreement over whether, in eviction proceedings conducted through the (non-litigious) enforcement court, non-payment of ancillary expenses alone can constitute grounds for eviction.

2. The Situation Before the Ruling: A Split in Case Law

Before the HGK ruling, inconsistency was visible not only between lower courts but even within the Court of Cassation's own chambers:

• Decisions favoring the narrow interpretation: In several rulings, the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber held that a tenant's contractual undertaking to pay ancillary expenses — fuel, security, building-caretaker, cleaning, water, electricity, waste-collection, or management fees — did not turn these obligations into "ancillary elements of the principal rent debt"; consequently, failure to perform them did not constitute grounds for eviction within the narrow jurisdiction of the enforcement court (Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/8153, Decision No. 2014/11453, dated 18.04.2014; similarly Case No. 2016/21900, Decision No. 2017/13586, dated 02.11.2017). Under this view, principal charges arising from the property itself — such as real-estate tax or environmental cleaning tax — were likewise not treated as part of the rent (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/5242, Decision No. 2016/5299, dated 20.09.2016).

• Decisions favoring the broad interpretation: Other rulings held, under TBK Article 315, that a tenant who fails to pay ancillary expenses — in addition to rent — could be evicted on grounds of default (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/11891, Decision No. 2016/5132, dated 05.09.2016).

This split undermined predictability for both landlords and tenants. The HGK ruling addresses precisely this need for clarity.

3. The Court of Cassation General Assembly's Ruling of 02.07.2025 (Case No. 2024/785, Decision No. 2025/426)

3.1. The Facts

Under a lease agreement for a commercial property, the parties had expressly agreed that electricity and water charges and the common-area contribution fee were to be paid by the tenant, and that non-payment of these charges would constitute a separate ground for termination and eviction, just as non-payment of rent would (clauses 9.4 and 9.5 of the lease).

The landlord initiated non-litigious enforcement proceedings seeking eviction, for a total of TRY 314,437.46, covering the rent debt as well as the common-area contribution fee, the electricity infrastructure-service charge, the water usage charge, and the electricity consumption charge. The tenant did not object to the proceedings within the statutory seven-day period, but during the thirty-day payment period paid only TRY 172,000 — corresponding to the base rent — and did not pay the ancillary expenses.

3.2. Procedural History

The court of first instance (the Enforcement Court) dismissed the eviction request on the grounds that, even though the lease contained such a clause, eviction could not be ordered for non-payment of ancillary expenses whose amount the parties had not agreed upon. The regional court of appeal upheld that decision; however, the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber overturned it, holding that the tenant's failure to pay the ancillary expenses it was obliged to pay under TBK Articles 314 and 315 constituted default. When the first-instance court resisted the reversal, the dispute reached the General Assembly.

3.3. The Majority's Reasoning

The majority emphasized that TBK Article 314 obliges the tenant to pay not only the rent but also, "where applicable," the ancillary expenses; and that TBK Article 315 treats default in paying either the rent or the ancillary expenses as an equally valid ground for termination. The Assembly's reasoning included the following findings:

• Under İİK Article 269/1, since the landlord may request that the notice prescribed by TBK Article 315 be served together with the payment order, the landlord may, in the same proceeding, claim both the unpaid rent and the unpaid ancillary expenses.

• Because the tenant did not object to the payment order within the statutory period, the ancillary-expense debt and its amount became final and conclusive.

• The Assembly's key finding was: "Under Article 315 of the TBK, the legal consequence of a tenant's default in performing either the rent or the ancillary expenses is the same." On this basis, the Assembly held that it was necessary to find that default had occurred where the ancillary-expense debt was not paid within the thirty-day default period, and concluded that the tenant's eviction should be ordered.

The Assembly did not adopt, by majority, the opposing view raised during deliberations — that İİK Article 269/a, on its literal wording, refers only to "rent debt," and that the legislator deliberately chose not to carry over the "or ancillary expenses" language of TBK Article 315 into the İİK.

3.4. The Dissenting Opinion: The Debate Is Not Entirely Closed

A minority opinion in the ruling is worth noting. The dissenting member(s) advanced the following arguments:

• The special provisions of the İİK governing leases (Articles 269, 269/a) and the corresponding article of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Regulation refer consistently and only to the concepts of "rent claim" and "rent debt"; a literal interpretation cannot extend these concepts to include ancillary expenses.

• The legislator deliberately did not carry the "or ancillary expenses" language of TBK Article 315(1) into İİK Article 269/a.

• The fact that the lease assigns a particular ancillary expense to the tenant does not, as a matter of law, make that obligation part of the "rent debt"; items such as fuel, security, caretaker, cleaning, water, electricity, waste, and management fees remain ancillary to, rather than part of, the principal rent debt.

• Consequently, where the principal rent debt is paid in full within the default period, non-payment of ancillary expenses alone does not constitute grounds for eviction within the narrow jurisdiction of the enforcement court; this issue can only be litigated before a general court (i.e., in a civil action before the Civil Court of Peace — Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi).

This dissent rests on solid legal grounds and shows that the matter was not resolved unanimously even within the Court of Cassation. For practitioners, this means the possibility that the issue could resurface — through a future decision unifying case law or a differently constituted General Assembly — should not be dismissed.

4. Subsequent Case Law: How Is the HGK Ruling Being Applied?

The HGK's ruling of 02.07.2025 did not stand alone; it was adopted and applied to concrete cases by the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber within the same year.

4.1. Eviction Is Possible Even in Proceedings Based Solely on Common-Area (Maintenance) Fees

In its ruling of 06.10.2025 (Case No. 2025/7021, Decision No. 2025/5902), the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber, directly citing the HGK precedent, repeated the following principle: "Under Article 315 of the TBK, the legal consequence of a tenant's default in performing either the rent or the ancillary expenses is the same (...) eviction may be ordered even in proceedings based solely on a common-area-fee claim."

However, the concrete outcome of this ruling should be read carefully: the regional court of appeal had dismissed the claim on the ground that, because the amount of the common-area-fee claim was not specified in the lease as a fixed sum or percentage, "the existence and amount of the claim required a full trial"; the 12th Civil Chamber, while partially revising the reasoning, upheld that dismissal in its outcome. The ruling also contains two separate dissenting opinions: one argues that the uncertainty of the amount should not have barred eviction and that eviction should have been ordered directly; the other, contrary to the HGK majority, repeats the classic "ancillary" view — that ancillary expenses can never, under any circumstances, constitute grounds for eviction within the enforcement court's narrow jurisdiction.

Practical takeaway: In an eviction request based solely on an ancillary expense — particularly a variable item such as a common-area or maintenance fee — clearly establishing the amount of the claim, whether through the lease itself or through finalized documentation, is critical to avoiding an objection before the narrow-jurisdiction enforcement court that the matter "requires a full trial."

4.2. The "Örnek 13" Enforcement Procedure May Be Used for Common-Area-Fee Claims

In its ruling of 16.05.2023 (Case No. 2023/3246, Decision No. 2023/3416), the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber confirmed — in a case where the lease obliged the tenant to pay the common-area fee (aidat) — that this debt qualifies as an ancillary expense under TBK Article 315, and that there is no legal impediment to pursuing it through an eviction-seeking non-litigious enforcement proceeding using the standard payment-order form ("Örnek 13"). The eviction order issued after the tenant failed to object in time and failed to pay within thirty days was upheld.

4.3. An Important Limitation: The Landlord Must Have Paid First

TBK Article 341, concerning usage charges such as heating, lighting, and water, provides:

"Unless otherwise agreed or provided by local custom, the tenant of residential and roofed-workplace premises is obliged to bear usage charges such as heating, lighting, and water."

The Court of Cassation's 6th Civil Chamber ruling of 09.04.2015 (Case No. 2015/2926, Decision No. 2015/3523) is important in illustrating the limits of this obligation: in the case examined, the creditor of the building maintenance fee was the site/building management, not the landlord; the landlord had not paid the tenant's maintenance-fee debt to the management itself before demanding it from the tenant and seeking eviction for default. The Court of Cassation reversed the decision, holding that the landlord could not seek eviction unless it had first made the payment itself.

Practical takeaway: For items payable to a third party — such as a site or building management — the landlord, as a rule, must first have paid that debt to the management itself before it can demand reimbursement from the tenant and seek eviction on that basis. This should always be verified before initiating enforcement proceedings.

5. Practical Implications of the Ruling

5.1. For Landlords

This current and binding HGK ruling gives landlords an important tool. However, the conditions of the ruling must be observed:

• A contractual basis is required. In the case at hand, the lease expressly provided that ancillary expenses were the tenant's responsibility and that non-payment would constitute a separate ground for termination and eviction, just as with rent. Whether the same outcome would follow in the absence of such a clause falls outside the direct scope of the ruling.

• The absence of an objection is a decisive factor. Because the tenant did not object to the payment order in time, the ancillary-expense debt and its amount became final. Where the tenant disputes the amount of the ancillary-expense items (for example, the billing methodology), whether the enforcement court has jurisdiction to examine that objection remains open to debate, and different outcomes may result before the narrow-jurisdiction enforcement court.

• Correctly drafting the enforcement request and the payment order is critical. Clearly and separately itemizing the rent and the ancillary-expense items prevents later disputes over "which item was paid and which was not."

5.2. For Tenants

From the tenant's perspective, the dissenting opinion — as summarized above — provides a solid basis for a defense. In particular:

• Where the lease does not expressly provide that non-payment of ancillary expenses constitutes a separate ground for termination/eviction, or

• Where the parties have not agreed on, or finalized, the amount of the ancillary-expense claim (for example, where the invoiced amount is disputed),

these circumstances may support a defense strategy before the enforcement court. In addition, claims of defects in the leased property and related requests for rent reduction under TBK Article 304 et seq. are matters that must be separately assessed according to the facts of each case.

6. An Alternative Route: The "Two Justified Notices" Mechanism (TBK Art. 352/2) and Ancillary Expenses

The default-based eviction route under İİK Article 269 and TBK Article 315, discussed above, is not the landlord's only option. The "two justified notices" (iki haklı ihtar) mechanism under TBK Article 352(2) is a separate ground for termination, available where rent — and only rent — is not paid on a regular basis. Because these two routes are frequently confused with one another, it is worth explaining the differences between them, and in particular, the status of ancillary expenses within this mechanism.

6.1. Core Principles

The established principles governing the operation of the two-justified-notices mechanism can be summarized as follows:

• Two justified notices are required within one rental year. In leases with a term of less than one year, within the lease term; in leases of one year or longer, within a single rental year, the tenant must have been the recipient of a written justified notice on two separate occasions for non-payment of rent. The mechanism does not arise in leases of indefinite duration or where rent is agreed to be paid annually.

• Service of the notice is mandatory; payment made before service invalidates the notice. The notice must be duly served on the tenant. However, payments made after service do not prevent a justified notice from arising — that is, even if the tenant pays after receiving the notice, that notice still counts as a "justified notice." Where the date of service and the date of payment coincide, the interpretation favorable to the tenant applies, and payment is deemed to have been made before service (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2013/15341, Decision No. 2013/16258, dated 04.12.2013: even where the amount of rent is disputed, payment — after service of the notice — of the amount the tenant itself accepts is sufficient to render the notice justified).

• Where an acceleration clause applies, the rent debt cannot be split. If the lease contains an acceleration clause (under which accrued rent becomes due as a single lump sum), the resulting total rent debt must be demanded in a single notice; that same debt cannot be artificially divided into separate notices to manufacture "two justified notices" (Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 49th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2020/2168, Decision No. 2023/711, dated 12.04.2023).

• Pursuing accrued rent in a single, consolidated proceeding is not an abuse of right. Rent debts that have already fallen into default should be pursued as a consolidated total in a single proceeding; splitting the claim month by month does not, in itself, amount to an abuse of right — and this principle also applies to the two-justified-notices mechanism under TBK Article 352(2) (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2012/6847, Decision No. 2012/9875, dated 02.07.2012; similarly Case No. 1995/8506, Decision No. 1995/9732, dated 27.09.1995). For example, if the January, February, and March rents have all fallen due, they must all be claimed in a single proceeding; however, if payment is due on the 1st–5th of each month and only the January and February rents have fallen due, those two months may be pursued in one proceeding on 5 March, with March pursued separately on 6 March — this does not amount to an abuse of right.

• A notice is not subject to any particular form. In eviction actions based on the two-justified-notices ground, notices are not subject to formal requirements; it is sufficient that a notice demanding payment of rent reaches the addressee in any manner, and that payment is made after service of that notice, for the breach to be deemed justified (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2001/4392, Decision No. 2001/4683, dated 04.06.2001). Views suggesting that "a notice must expressly state the month to which the unpaid rent relates, its amount, the demand for payment, and the legal consequence of non-payment" are incorrect; a notice is not bound to any particular form. That said, the failure of a notice to specify which month the demanded rent relates to does not itself invalidate the notice or prevent the conditions of a two-justified-notices claim from being met (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/8844, Decision No. 2014/11098, dated 15.10.2014).

• The lawsuit must be filed within one month of the end of the lease term. An eviction action based on two justified notices must be filed within one month from the end of the rental year in which the notices were given — this is essentially what distinguishes it from a default action under TBK Article 315.

• Enforcement proceedings (Örnek 13) also serve as a notice. There is no need for a separate notarial notice for purposes of TBK Article 352(2); a duly served enforcement payment order also qualifies as a justified notice. Enforcement proceedings are generally cheaper, though service of process can take longer.

• Where there are multiple landlords, the notice and the lawsuit must be brought jointly. Where a title-deed owner and other landlords are subject to mandatory joinder as co-claimants, the notice must be issued jointly and the lawsuit filed jointly; while a defect in the lawsuit itself may later be cured, a defect arising from the notice not having been issued jointly cannot subsequently be cured (Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 54th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/2795, Decision No. 2024/2643, dated 04.12.2024).

• The amount accepted by the tenant governs. Even where the rent amount is disputed, the amount the tenant actually accepted and paid governs for purposes of default/the notice (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2013/15341, Decision No. 2013/16258, dated 04.12.2013).

• A defect in service of the payment order does not save a tenant who was in fact aware of the proceedings. Even where there is a procedural defect in service of the payment order, default may still be deemed to have occurred where the tenant was in fact aware of the enforcement proceedings (Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 36th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2019/3134, Decision No. 2021/1779, dated 22.09.2021).

• Months already covered by the first notice cannot be included again in a second notice. Rent months demanded in one notice cannot be included again in a subsequent notice to manufacture a "second justified notice"; conversely, demanding a month that had not yet fallen due at the time the notice was issued may also render that notice invalid (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2017/8858, Decision No. 2018/2112, dated 07.03.2018).

• An owner who is not the landlord may also sue after first giving notice. An owner who does not hold the status of landlord may bring a two-justified-notices action if they have first given the tenant notice demanding that rent be paid to them, and that notice has proven ineffective (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/4142, Decision No. 2014/5419, dated 29.04.2014).

• The right to pursue the action/proceeding may be transferred. Where ownership of the leased property changes hands, the rights and powers under a two-justified-notices action brought by the former owner pass to the new owner by assignment, and the new owner may pursue the action (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 1983/9771, Decision No. 1983/9900, dated 19.10.1983).

6.2. Can Ancillary Expenses Be the Subject of a "Two Justified Notices" Claim?

At this point, a critical distinction emerges that connects directly back to the main subject of this article: the two-justified-notices route applies only to non-payment of rent. Non-payment of ancillary expenses — electricity, water, common-area fees — cannot form the basis of a justified notice within the meaning of TBK Article 352(2). In other words:

• The HGK and 12th Civil Chamber case law discussed in Sections 3–4 above establishes that, within the İİK Article 269 / enforcement court regime, ancillary expenses can be subjected to the same legal consequence as the rent debt (eviction for default).

• By contrast, under the TBK Article 352(2) two-justified-notices regime, this extension does not apply; a notice issued for non-payment of ancillary expenses cannot be counted toward the "two justified notices" requirement.

Practical consequence: Where a tenant regularly fails to pay both rent and ancillary expenses, the landlord must not conflate these two routes when building a strategy. "Two justified notices" cannot be manufactured on the basis of ancillary-expense debt alone; notices for this route must relate to rent. For ancillary expenses, the default regime under İİK Article 269 / TBK Article 315 described in Sections 3–4 must be relied upon instead.

7. Conclusion

The Court of Cassation General Assembly's ruling of 02.07.2025 (Case No. 2024/785, Decision No. 2025/426) confirms that — provided the lease expressly so provides — a tenant's failure to pay ancillary expenses such as electricity, water, or common-area fees, even while paying the base rent in full, can constitute grounds for eviction due to default under İİK Article 269/a and TBK Article 315. While the ruling brought a long-running debate in case law to an end by a strong majority, the notable dissenting opinion included in the decision shows that the legal debate on this issue is not entirely closed.

Both landlords and tenants would benefit from reassessing the ancillary-expense provisions of their leases, and their enforcement/litigation strategies, in light of this current case law — while taking into account the specific facts of their own situation.

Should you need to review your lease, evaluate an eviction proceeding you have initiated or are considering, or learn about your rights in a rental dispute, you can reach us through our contact page.

Please note: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice tailored to any specific matter. Because the applicable legal advice depends heavily on the particular terms of each lease and each enforcement proceeding, you should always consult a lawyer to determine whether the analysis above applies to your situation.

Sources:

• Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), Law No. 6098 — Articles 313, 314, 315, 341, 352

• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), Law No. 2004 — Articles 269–269/d

• Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2024/785, Decision No. 2025/426, dated 02.07.2025

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2025/7021, Decision No. 2025/5902, dated 06.10.2025

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2024/1119, Decision No. 2024/4149, dated 30.04.2024

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/8563, Decision No. 2024/4902, dated 16.05.2024

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2024/524, Decision No. 2024/3075, dated 28.03.2024

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/3246, Decision No. 2023/3416, dated 16.05.2023

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/8153, Decision No. 2014/11453, dated 18.04.2014

• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/21900, Decision No. 2017/13586, dated 02.11.2017

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/11891, Decision No. 2016/5132, dated 05.09.2016

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/5242, Decision No. 2016/5299, dated 20.09.2016

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/2926, Decision No. 2015/3523, dated 09.04.2015

• Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2017/1918, Decision No. 2021/1707, dated 21.12.2021 (cited within the 12th Civil Chamber's 2025/7021 ruling)

• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 49th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2020/2168, Decision No. 2023/711, dated 12.04.2023 (acceleration clauses — cannot be split into two notices)

• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 54th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/2795, Decision No. 2024/2643, dated 04.12.2024 (mandatory joinder of co-landlords)

• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 36th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2019/3134, Decision No. 2021/1779, dated 22.09.2021 (defective service — tenant nonetheless aware)

• Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2017/8858, Decision No. 2018/2112, dated 07.03.2018 (months already covered by an earlier notice)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2001/4392, Decision No. 2001/4683, dated 04.06.2001 (notices not subject to formal requirements)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2013/15341, Decision No. 2013/16258, dated 04.12.2013 (payment made after service of notice)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2012/6847, Decision No. 2012/9875, dated 02.07.2012; Case No. 1995/8506, Decision No. 1995/9732, dated 27.09.1995 (consolidated proceedings — not an abuse of right)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/8844, Decision No. 2014/11098, dated 15.10.2014 (omission of the relevant month from a notice does not invalidate it)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/4142, Decision No. 2014/5419, dated 29.04.2014 (right of a non-landlord owner to sue)

• Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 1983/9771, Decision No. 1983/9900, dated 19.10.1983 (transfer of the right to pursue the action by assignment)