Eviction Due to Landlord’s Housing or Workplace Need in Turkey

Eviction due to a landlord’s housing or workplace need is one of the principal legal grounds through which a residential or roofed commercial lease may be terminated in Turkey. However, property ownership alone does not give a landlord an unrestricted right to remove an existing tenant.

Under Turkish rental law, a landlord seeking possession must establish that the rented property is genuinely required as a residence or workplace for a person protected by law. The alleged need must not be artificial, temporary or created merely to replace the existing tenant with another person willing to pay a higher rent.

The principal legal basis is Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. This provision allows a landlord to request termination where the property must be used as a residence or workplace by the landlord, the landlord’s spouse, descendants, ascendants or another person whom the landlord is legally obliged to support. The lawsuit must also be filed within the statutory period determined according to whether the rental agreement is fixed-term or indefinite-term.

Need-based eviction cases require careful procedural planning. The existence of a genuine need is not sufficient if the landlord misses the filing deadline, fails to complete mandatory mediation or brings the action against the wrong party. Similarly, a properly timed case may still be dismissed if the alleged need is not supported by convincing evidence.

This guide explains the requirements for eviction due to a landlord’s housing or workplace need in Turkey, the persons whose need may justify eviction, the standards applied by Turkish courts, the evidence required, mandatory mediation, filing periods and the consequences of re-letting the property after eviction.

Legal Basis of Need-Based Eviction in Turkey

Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates termination arising from the landlord’s need. The landlord may terminate a residential or roofed workplace lease through a lawsuit if the property must be used because of the housing or workplace need of:

• The landlord;
• The landlord’s spouse;
• The landlord’s descendants;
• The landlord’s ascendants; or
• Other persons whom the landlord is legally obliged to support.

The same article separately regulates eviction for reconstruction and substantial renovation. However, personal housing or workplace need and reconstruction are legally distinct grounds and should not be confused.

The persons protected by Article 350 are listed on a limited basis. A landlord cannot automatically request eviction for every friend, business partner, distant relative or person with whom the landlord has an emotional connection.

For example, the need of a child, parent or spouse is expressly covered. The need of another relative must be assessed according to whether Turkish law imposes a legal support obligation on the landlord regarding that person.

The identity of the person who will use the property must be clearly stated in the mediation application, notice where applicable and statement of claim. A vague allegation that “the family needs the property” may not be sufficient unless the claimant explains whose need exists, why the property is required and how it will be used.

Does the Expiry of a One-Year Lease Allow Eviction?

A fixed-term residential lease does not automatically give the landlord the right to recover possession when the initial term expires.

Under Article 347 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, unless the tenant gives notice at least 15 days before the end of the fixed period, the lease is normally renewed for one year under the same conditions. The landlord cannot terminate the agreement merely by relying on the expiry of the original period.

Accordingly, a clause stating that the tenant must leave automatically after one year does not necessarily provide an independent eviction right.

The landlord must either rely on a statutory ground, such as genuine housing or workplace need, or use another termination mechanism expressly recognised by law.

This distinction is extremely important. A landlord may file a need-based eviction lawsuit after the contractual period has expired, but the case is not based merely on the expiry itself. The landlord must prove the genuine need and comply with the one-month filing period.

What Does “Housing Need” Mean?

Housing need exists where the property is genuinely required for regular residential use by one of the persons protected by Article 350.

The landlord does not necessarily have to be homeless. However, the existing housing circumstances must establish a reasonable and serious need for the rented property.

Examples that may support a housing need include:

• The landlord currently lives in rented accommodation;
• The landlord is required to leave the current residence;
• The landlord’s current home is physically unsuitable;
• A child will establish an independent household;
• A family member will marry and requires a separate residence;
• The landlord must relocate because of employment;
• Health or accessibility requirements make the existing residence unsuitable;
• Family circumstances require the landlord to live closer to relatives, work, education or medical services; or
• The landlord lives with relatives under conditions that are no longer reasonably sustainable.

These situations do not result in automatic eviction. The court considers all circumstances and determines whether the need is real, sincere and compulsory.

For instance, a landlord living in rented accommodation may present a strong need claim, but the tenant may still prove that the landlord owns another vacant and suitable residence or does not genuinely intend to move into the property.

What Does “Workplace Need” Mean?

A landlord may also request eviction where the property is required as a workplace.

The proposed use must be genuine and reasonably connected with an existing or sufficiently concrete professional or commercial activity. A general statement that the landlord may start a business at some uncertain point in the future is unlikely to be enough.

The claimant should normally explain:

• What activity will be carried out;
• Who will operate the business;
• Why the rented property is suitable;
• Whether the required licences can be obtained;
• Why the current workplace is inadequate or unavailable;
• Whether preparations for the business have commenced; and
• Whether financial, professional or administrative arrangements support the declared plan.

Turkish judicial practice requires both the need and the suitability of the premises for the proposed activity to be examined. A temporary, speculative or remote workplace plan is not treated in the same manner as an established and imminent business need.

The physical and legal suitability of the property may become decisive. A property may be commercially attractive but unsuitable for the intended activity because of zoning restrictions, condominium rules, licensing requirements, ventilation problems, inadequate electrical capacity or the absence of necessary administrative approvals.

Can a Company Request Eviction for Workplace Need?

A legal entity that is the landlord may, in principle, rely on its own genuine workplace need. A company may require the property for an office, branch, storage facility, operational centre or another activity consistent with its legal and commercial purpose.

However, the separate legal personality of companies must be respected.

A natural-person landlord will not necessarily be able to obtain eviction merely because a company in which the landlord is a shareholder requires the property. Turkish Court of Cassation practice distinguishes between the personal need of the individual landlord and the independent need of a separate company.

The company’s trade registry records, articles of association, board decisions, current lease, business activity and planned use of the premises may be relevant.

If the claimant is a company, the statement of claim should clearly explain why the property is required by that legal entity itself. If the claimant is an individual, the case should not be built solely on the needs of another legal entity unless the particular facts provide an independent legal basis.

The Need Must Be Genuine, Sincere and Compulsory

The wording of Article 350 refers to a necessity to use the property. Turkish Court of Cassation practice has developed three closely connected standards: the need must be genuine, sincere and compulsory.

A genuine need reflects an actual intention to use the property.

A sincere need is not invented to remove the tenant for another purpose.

A compulsory need is sufficiently serious to justify ending the tenant’s legally protected occupation.

Courts repeatedly state that temporary needs, needs that have not yet arisen and needs whose realisation depends on an uncertain or distant future event do not ordinarily justify eviction. The need must normally exist when the lawsuit is filed and continue during the proceedings.

The court does not assess these concepts through a single document. It examines the claimant’s entire personal, family, professional and financial situation.

Statements made before and after the lawsuit may also be considered. For example, correspondence demanding an unlawful rent increase shortly before a need-based eviction claim may create questions about whether the real objective is personal use or obtaining a higher rent.

Temporary and Future Needs

A short-term preference does not normally justify eviction.

A landlord who wishes to use the property only for a brief holiday, occasional visit or uncertain future possibility may have difficulty proving the required level of necessity.

However, the fact that the planned use will begin in the near future does not automatically defeat the case. A need connected with a sufficiently concrete and imminent event may be accepted.

Examples may include an approaching marriage, a confirmed appointment to a job in the property’s location, completion of university education, retirement, an established relocation date or the imminent expiry of the landlord’s existing lease.

The important distinction is between a foreseeable and concrete need and a hypothetical possibility.

The claimant should submit evidence demonstrating that the future event is likely, sufficiently close and supported by actual preparations.

Must the Need Continue During the Lawsuit?

The need must generally continue throughout the proceedings.

It is not enough for the need to have existed only on the filing date. If circumstances later change and the need disappears, the legal basis for eviction may also disappear.

For example, the person for whom the property was required may move permanently to another city, abandon the proposed business, acquire another suitable residence or cease to require independent accommodation.

The tenant may submit later developments to the court and argue that the continued existence requirement is no longer satisfied.

The landlord should therefore notify counsel of any significant change in family, employment, residence or business circumstances during the case.

Does Ownership of Another Property Prevent Eviction?

The landlord’s ownership of another property does not automatically require dismissal. The decisive issue is whether another property is vacant, available and reasonably suitable for the same need.

The court may compare the properties according to:

• Location;
• Size;
• Accessibility;
• Physical condition;
• Occupancy;
• Distance from work or school;
• Family requirements;
• Legal use;
• Commercial suitability; and
• Health-related needs.

An occupied, distant, physically unsuitable or legally unusable property may not satisfy the claimant’s need.

Conversely, the existence of a vacant property with substantially similar characteristics may weaken the claim if the landlord cannot explain why the rented property is specifically required.

A need-based lawsuit is not necessarily determined by the number of properties owned. The court evaluates actual suitability and availability rather than ownership records alone.

Is Living in a Rented Property Sufficient Proof?

A landlord who lives in another rented residence may have a persuasive need claim because ownership law does not generally require a person to continue paying rent while their own suitable property is occupied by a tenant.

Nevertheless, living in rented accommodation is not an automatic and irrebuttable ground for eviction.

The court may examine whether the landlord genuinely intends to move, whether the existing accommodation is stable, whether another owned property is available and whether the rented property is suitable for the landlord’s actual circumstances.

A lease agreement for the current residence, bank payment records, a notice from the current landlord, address records and witness evidence may support the claim.

The tenant may challenge the claim by showing inconsistencies, other vacant properties or statements indicating that the landlord intends to sell or re-let the property rather than occupy it.

Need of the Landlord’s Children

The need of a son or daughter falls within the express wording of Article 350 because descendants are protected persons.

Common claims include a child who will marry, establish an independent household, return from another city, begin employment, attend university or separate from the family residence.

The child does not always need to be married for an independent housing need to arise. The court evaluates age, occupation, financial circumstances, current living arrangements and the seriousness of the plan to live separately.

However, a purely abstract statement that an adult child may eventually move out is not enough.

Evidence may include marriage preparations, employment records, university documents, current residence conditions, witness testimony and communications demonstrating actual preparations.

If the claimed need concerns a workplace, the child’s professional activity, business plans, licences and suitability of the property should also be established.

Need of Parents and Other Ascendants

The housing or workplace need of the landlord’s mother, father, grandparents or other ascendants may justify eviction because ascendants are expressly covered by Article 350.

The claimant should explain why the person requires the particular property, their current living situation and how the rented property will meet that need.

Health records, accessibility requirements, family support arrangements or the need to live near the landlord may be relevant.

The landlord does not have to prove that the parent has no roof whatsoever. However, the circumstances must establish a serious need rather than a simple preference.

Need of the Spouse

The spouse’s housing or workplace need is expressly recognised.

The court may examine the spouses’ actual residence, marital and family circumstances, employment, existing properties and intended use.

If the parties are living separately, divorce proceedings or personal circumstances may affect the assessment. The existence of marital conflict does not automatically invalidate the spouse’s housing need, but the factual situation must be explained clearly.

Evidence may include civil registry records, address documents, employment records and testimony regarding the intended residence.

Persons the Landlord Is Legally Obliged to Support

Article 350 also refers to persons whom the landlord is legally required to support.

This category does not include every relative or person whom the landlord voluntarily assists. The obligation must arise under law.

The claimant must establish both the legal relationship and the circumstances creating the support obligation.

Because this category is more technical than the expressly listed spouse, descendants and ascendants, the statement of claim should identify the legal basis of the support obligation and explain why providing the rented residence or workplace is connected with that obligation.

Who Can File the Lawsuit?

The party status of the claimant must be examined carefully.

The action is ordinarily filed by the landlord appearing as the lessor in the rental relationship. Complications may arise where the property owner and contractual landlord are different persons, where ownership is shared, where the property was inherited or where the agreement was signed through a representative.

The rental agreement, title deed and any power of attorney should be reviewed together.

In jointly owned properties, whether one co-owner may file alone or whether participation of other right holders is required depends on the nature of ownership, the rental relationship and procedural circumstances.

If the property has been sold after the lease was signed, the new owner’s rights are primarily regulated under Article 351 rather than the original landlord’s Article 350 procedure.

Difference Between Article 350 and the New Owner’s Need

Article 350 applies to need-based termination by the existing landlord.

Article 351 provides a special mechanism for a person who acquires an already rented property. The new owner must notify the tenant in writing within one month following acquisition and may then file a lawsuit after six months. Alternatively, the new owner may rely on the end of the contractual period and file within one month following that date.

The two procedures should not be mixed.

A new owner who misses the one-month acquisition notice may lose the special six-month route, although the possibility of relying on the contractual expiry route should be evaluated separately.

In both procedures, the claimed need must be genuine, sincere and compulsory. Purchasing a property does not eliminate the tenant’s statutory protection.

Filing Period for Fixed-Term Leases

For a fixed-term residential or roofed workplace lease, a need-based eviction lawsuit must generally be filed within one month following the end of the contractual period.

Assume that the lease runs from 1 October 2025 to 30 September 2026. Subject to mandatory mediation and the precise calculation of procedural periods, the landlord must preserve and exercise the right arising at the end of that rental period.

Missing the deadline may cause the case to be dismissed even if the need is genuine.

The contractual commencement date, renewal date and duration should therefore be identified from the original agreement and actual rental relationship.

A document signed later does not always create a completely new lease. Supplementary protocols and continuous occupation may need to be examined when calculating the relevant period.

Filing Period for Indefinite-Term Leases

For an indefinite-term lease, Article 350 requires compliance with the termination periods and notice periods arising from the general lease provisions.

Under Articles 328 and 329, the commencement date is relevant to calculating termination periods. In the absence of a different applicable local practice, immovable property leases are generally terminated for the end of a six-month rental period by observing a three-month notice period. The need-based lawsuit must then be filed within one month from the termination date determined according to those rules.

Indefinite-term calculations are technically sensitive. A notice sent on the wrong date may become effective only for a later termination period.

The written notice should clearly identify the agreement, legal ground, person whose need is relied upon and intended termination date.

Extending the Filing Period Under Article 353

Article 353 provides an important method for preserving the right to sue.

If the landlord notifies the tenant in writing, no later than the original filing deadline, that an eviction lawsuit will be filed, the time for filing is extended for one rental year.

This provision is particularly useful where the parties are negotiating or completing mandatory mediation.

The notice should not be vague. It should clearly communicate the intention to terminate the lease and file an eviction lawsuit because of the identified housing or workplace need.

A general request to increase rent or an informal statement that the landlord may need the property may not provide the same legal certainty.

Notarial notice is commonly preferred because it provides reliable evidence of content and service.

Mandatory Mediation Before Filing the Lawsuit

Since 1 September 2023, disputes arising from rental relationships are generally subject to mandatory mediation before litigation, except for the specific non-judicial eviction provisions under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

A housing or workplace need case is therefore subject to mandatory mediation. A lawsuit filed without completing this process may be dismissed because a procedural prerequisite is missing.

The mediation application should identify:

• The landlord and tenant;
• The rented property;
• The rental agreement;
• The person whose housing or workplace need is claimed;
• The requested eviction date;
• Any outstanding rent or ancillary disputes; and
• The proposed handover conditions.

From the mediation application until the final report is issued, limitation periods are suspended and forfeiture periods do not run under Article 18/A. This rule is particularly important in need-based eviction cases because Article 350 contains strict filing periods.

Nevertheless, the interaction between the contractual expiry date, Article 353 notice and mediation period should be calculated carefully. The application should not be left until the final day.

Settlement During Mediation

The parties may settle the dispute without a court judgment.

A mediation agreement may regulate the exact evacuation date, continuation of rent payments, key delivery, utility accounts, deposit return, property condition and consequences of failure to leave.

The agreement should state an exact date rather than using vague language such as “when the tenant finds another property.”

It should also clarify whether rent or occupation compensation will continue until actual handover.

Under Article 18/B, agreements concerning immovable-property disputes require an enforceability review by the Civil Court of Peace. The court examines whether the settlement is suitable for compulsory enforcement and complies with the legal rules relating to immovable property.

A carefully prepared settlement may provide the landlord with a predictable possession date while giving the tenant reasonable time to relocate.

Which Court Hears the Lawsuit?

The competent court by subject matter is generally the Civil Court of Peace, known in Turkish as the Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi.

Article 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure places disputes arising from rental relationships, including eviction cases, within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts of Peace regardless of the monetary value of the dispute.

Territorial jurisdiction must be assessed separately. The case may generally be connected with the defendant tenant’s residence or the place where the agreement is performed.

The statement of claim should include the mediation final report, rental agreement, title deed and all documents supporting the need.

Evidence Required for Housing Need

Evidence in a housing-need case may include:

• Title deed records;
• The rental agreement;
• Civil registry records;
• Address-registration documents;
• The landlord’s current rental agreement;
• Bank records proving current rent payments;
• Notices concerning the landlord’s current residence;
• Employment and relocation documents;
• Medical reports;
• Marriage preparations;
• School or university records;
• Witness statements;
• Photographs and property information; and
• Records concerning other properties owned by the landlord.

No single document is always decisive.

The court examines whether all evidence forms a consistent and credible explanation of the need.

Witnesses may confirm family arrangements and the intended move, but objective written evidence generally strengthens the claim.

Evidence Required for Workplace Need

A workplace-need claim may require more detailed commercial evidence.

Relevant documents may include:

• Trade registry records;
• Tax registrations;
• Professional licences;
• Chamber registrations;
• The current workplace lease;
• A notice requiring the current workplace to be vacated;
• Corporate resolutions;
• Business plans;
• Equipment purchases;
• Applications for administrative permission;
• Financial arrangements;
• Architectural or technical reports; and
• Evidence that the property is suitable for the proposed activity.

The claimant should demonstrate more than a general commercial ambition.

If the business has not yet commenced, the steps already taken should show that the project is concrete and imminent.

The tenant may challenge the claim by demonstrating that the activity cannot lawfully be conducted in the property or that the claimant has another available workplace.

Burden of Proof

The landlord bears the principal burden of proving the need.

The tenant does not have to prove that the landlord is acting dishonestly before the landlord presents a proper case. The claimant must first establish the factual and legal conditions for eviction.

The tenant may then submit contrary evidence, such as another vacant property, advertisements offering the property for sale, communications demanding a substantial rent increase, inconsistent statements or evidence that the proposed use is impossible.

The court evaluates all evidence together.

Because the case concerns termination of a protected residential or commercial lease, abstract assertions are rarely sufficient.

Circumstances That May Weaken the Landlord’s Case

A need-based claim may be questioned where:

• The landlord recently demanded an excessive rent and threatened eviction;
• The property is simultaneously advertised for sale;
• Another suitable property is vacant;
• The person whose need is claimed lives permanently abroad without a concrete return plan;
• The proposed business is legally impossible in the property;
• The landlord gives contradictory explanations;
• The need depends on an uncertain future event;
• The property is materially unsuitable for the stated use;
• The need disappears during the proceedings; or
• Evidence indicates an intention to rent the property to another tenant.

None of these circumstances automatically decides the case in every situation. However, they may affect the court’s assessment of sincerity and necessity.

The claimant should address potentially adverse facts openly and provide a coherent explanation.

Can the Landlord Demand Eviction Merely to Increase the Rent?

Obtaining a higher rent is not an independent need-based eviction ground.

The landlord may use lawful rent-increase and rent-determination procedures where the contractual rent is below the legal or market level. Those procedures are separate from eviction based on personal use.

A landlord cannot transform a rental-value disagreement into a fictitious housing or workplace need.

Prior rent negotiations do not automatically prove bad faith. However, the timing and content of communications may be examined when assessing the real purpose of the action.

A demand stating that the tenant must either accept a very high increase or leave may be used by the tenant to challenge the sincerity of a later need claim.

Can the Tenant Be Forced Out Before Judgment?

The landlord cannot lawfully recover possession by changing the locks, removing belongings or disconnecting electricity, water or natural gas.

Need-based eviction requires mediation followed by a court action if no settlement is reached.

Ownership does not authorise self-help eviction.

The tenant remains responsible for complying with the rental agreement and paying rent during the proceedings. The existence of a lawsuit does not permit the tenant to occupy without payment.

Once an enforceable eviction judgment is obtained, possession should be recovered through the legally prescribed enforcement procedure if the tenant does not leave voluntarily.

Re-Letting Prohibition After Need-Based Eviction

Article 355 imposes an important restriction after possession is recovered because of need.

The landlord may not, without a justified reason, rent the property to anyone other than the former tenant for three years after securing its vacation for housing or workplace need.

The restriction is intended to prevent fictitious need claims.

If the landlord violates the rule, the former tenant may claim compensation of not less than one year’s rent calculated according to the rent paid during the final rental year.

The former tenant should preserve the eviction judgment, enforcement documents, key-delivery records, later advertisements and evidence showing occupation by a new tenant.

Court of Cassation decisions have also examined whether the landlord legally “caused” the property to be vacated through a judgment or enforcement process. The manner in which possession was returned may therefore affect a later compensation claim.

What Is a Justified Reason for Re-Letting?

The Turkish Code of Obligations does not provide an exhaustive list of justified reasons.

A serious and unforeseeable change arising after eviction may potentially justify the landlord’s inability to use the property.

Examples may include death, severe illness, compulsory relocation, loss of employment, an administrative prohibition or another event making the intended use impossible.

The reason must be assessed according to the circumstances. A simple change of preference or an opportunity to obtain higher rent may not be sufficient.

The landlord should preserve evidence demonstrating when the change occurred and why the original need could no longer be fulfilled.

Does the Landlord Have to Use the Property for Three Years?

Article 355 directly prohibits re-letting the property to another person within three years without a justified reason.

The practical assessment is not limited to whether a new formal lease was signed. The actual use of the property and the identity of the occupant may be examined.

A landlord who obtains eviction for the use of a particular child but immediately allows an unrelated third party to occupy the property may face legal questions.

The intended user, actual move-in date and subsequent use should therefore be documented.

Common Mistakes Made by Landlords

The most common mistake is believing that ownership itself proves the right to evict.

Other frequent errors include missing the one-month filing period, failing to complete mandatory mediation, relying on a temporary or hypothetical need, suing on behalf of a separate company’s need, failing to identify the intended user and ignoring another suitable property.

Some landlords send a notice but assume that no lawsuit deadline remains. A notice preserves rights only when it complies with Article 353 and is given within the proper period.

Another serious mistake is re-letting the property shortly after eviction without considering the three-year prohibition.

Common Mistakes Made by Tenants

Tenants sometimes assume that need-based eviction is impossible as long as rent is paid regularly.

Payment compliance prevents default-based claims but does not eliminate the landlord’s right to seek possession for a genuine personal need.

Another mistake is ignoring the mediation invitation or court documents.

The tenant should review whether the alleged need is genuine, whether the filing period has been observed and whether the claimant has another suitable property.

Tenants should also preserve messages concerning rent negotiations, advertisements and evidence of the landlord’s actual plans.

However, a defence should not be based solely on delay. If the landlord proves all statutory requirements, the court may order eviction even though the tenant has paid every rental instalment on time.

Practical Strategy for Landlords

The landlord should first determine the exact rental commencement and expiry dates.

The person whose need is relied upon should be identified, and objective evidence should be collected before formal action begins.

A written notice should be served where necessary, particularly to preserve the right under Article 353. Mandatory mediation should then be commenced without waiting until the final day.

The mediation application and statement of claim must be consistent. Changing the identity of the intended user or the reason for need during proceedings may undermine credibility.

The landlord should also evaluate the three-year re-letting restriction before commencing the process.

Practical Strategy for Tenants

The tenant should examine the original rental agreement, renewal date, notices and mediation application.

The claimant’s ownership and party status should be verified.

The tenant should investigate whether the landlord owns another suitable property and whether the proposed use is realistic.

Written communications, property advertisements and statements made during negotiations should be preserved.

During mediation, the tenant may negotiate a reasonable evacuation period, moving expenses, deposit return and continuation of rent payments.

Where the case proceeds to court, the defence should address both procedure and substance. A missed deadline may be decisive, but if the action is timely, the sincerity and compulsory nature of the need should be examined in detail.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a landlord evict a tenant because the landlord wants to live in the property?

Yes, but the landlord must prove that the housing need is genuine, sincere and compulsory and must comply with mediation and filing requirements.

Can a landlord evict a tenant for the landlord’s child?

Yes. Descendants are expressly protected by Article 350. However, the child’s need must be real and sufficiently concrete.

Can the landlord request eviction for a parent?

Yes. Ascendants are included in Article 350, subject to proof of genuine need.

Can the landlord request eviction to open a business?

Yes, where the workplace need is genuine and the property is suitable for the intended activity.

Can the landlord evict the tenant simply because the lease has ended?

No. The expiry of the original fixed period does not by itself give the landlord an unrestricted eviction right.

Is a prior notice compulsory?

The answer depends on the type of agreement and procedural route. A timely written notice may preserve the filing right for one rental year under Article 353. Indefinite-term agreements also require compliance with termination notice periods.

Is mediation compulsory?

Yes. A need-based eviction lawsuit is generally subject to mandatory mediation before litigation.

Which court hears the lawsuit?

The Civil Court of Peace generally has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Can the landlord rent the property to another tenant after eviction?

Without a justified reason, the landlord cannot rent it to someone other than the former tenant for three years.

What compensation may the former tenant claim?

If Article 355 is violated, compensation cannot be less than one year’s rent based on the amount paid during the final rental year.

Conclusion

Eviction due to a landlord’s housing or workplace need is a lawful but strictly controlled remedy under Turkish rental law.

The landlord must establish that the property is required by the landlord, spouse, descendants, ascendants or another person whom the landlord is legally obliged to support.

The need must be genuine, sincere, compulsory and continuing. Temporary preferences, distant plans and artificial claims intended only to obtain a higher rent do not satisfy the legal standard.

Procedural compliance is equally important. The landlord must determine the correct rental period, preserve the filing deadline, complete mandatory mediation and file the case before the competent Civil Court of Peace.

The outcome depends heavily on evidence. Housing records, existing leases, family circumstances, employment documents, commercial preparations, licences, title deed records and witness statements may all be relevant.

Landlords must also consider the consequences after eviction. Re-letting the property to another person within three years without a justified reason may result in a substantial compensation claim.

Tenants, on the other hand, should not assume that regular payment provides absolute protection against every eviction case. A genuine and legally proven housing or workplace need may justify termination even where the tenant has fully complied with payment obligations.

Both parties should therefore obtain individual legal advice before serving notice, applying for mediation, agreeing on an evacuation date or filing a need-based eviction lawsuit.

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information concerning eviction due to a landlord’s housing or workplace need in Turkey and does not constitute legal advice. Each case must be evaluated according to the rental agreement, property ownership, intended user, evidence, notices, mediation records and procedural dates.