Turkish rental law generally protects residential tenants against termination based solely on the expiration of a fixed-term rental agreement. A landlord cannot normally demand evacuation merely because the property belongs to the landlord, market rents have increased or the initial one-year rental period has ended.
However, the Turkish Code of Obligations recognises several specific circumstances arising from the tenant that may justify termination through an eviction lawsuit. One of these circumstances exists where the tenant, or the spouse living together with the tenant, owns another residence within the same district or township municipal boundaries and that residence is suitable for the household’s accommodation.
This eviction ground is regulated by Article 352/3 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098.
According to the provision, where the tenant or the spouse living together with the tenant has a residence suitable for occupation within the same district or township municipal boundaries, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement through a lawsuit if the landlord did not know about the other residence when the rental agreement was concluded. The lawsuit must be filed within one month beginning from the end of the rental period.
The existence of another property in the tenant’s name does not automatically guarantee eviction.
The property must be a genuine residence, must be located within the geographical boundaries specified by the law and must be objectively and subjectively suitable for the tenant and household. The landlord must also establish that the ownership was unknown when the rental agreement was formed and must comply strictly with the statutory filing period.
The Court of Cassation has emphasised that the suitability assessment requires examination of the tenant’s social circumstances, household size and family needs. It is not enough merely to produce a land-registry record showing that the tenant owns some form of residential property.
Since 1 September 2023, rental disputes of this kind are also generally subject to mandatory mediation before the eviction lawsuit is filed.
This article explains the legal requirements, procedure, evidence, possible tenant defences and practical consequences of eviction where a tenant owns another suitable residence in Turkey.
Legal Basis: Article 352/3 of the Turkish Code of Obligations
Article 352 contains termination grounds arising from the tenant.
The third paragraph provides a special eviction mechanism where the tenant has access to another suitable home.
The statutory conditions may be summarised as follows:
- The rented property must be used as a residence.
- The tenant or the spouse living together with the tenant must have another residence.
- The other residence must be within the same district or township municipal boundaries.
- The other residence must be suitable for the tenant’s accommodation.
- The landlord must not have known about the residence when the agreement was concluded.
- The landlord must use the court procedure.
- Mandatory mediation must generally be completed first.
- The lawsuit must be brought within the statutory period.
These requirements are cumulative. If one material condition is missing, the eviction claim may be rejected.
The legislative reasoning confirms that the present rule deliberately uses district or township municipal boundaries rather than treating an entire metropolitan municipality as one geographical area. It also confirms that the landlord cannot use this ground if the landlord knew about the other residence when the rental agreement was formed.
Why Does Turkish Law Recognise This Eviction Ground?
Residential tenant protection is principally intended to prevent a person from losing necessary accommodation without a legally recognised reason.
The protection becomes less compelling where the tenant or cohabiting spouse already owns another home that can reasonably meet the household’s accommodation needs in the same local area.
The purpose of Article 352/3 is not to punish property ownership. It is to balance the tenant’s housing protection against the landlord’s ownership and contractual rights where the tenant has a genuine and locally available alternative residence.
The rule does not mean that every tenant who owns real estate must leave a rented home.
A tenant may own:
- An unusable building;
- A small ownership share;
- A summer residence;
- A property occupied under another person’s legally protected right;
- A residence unsuitable for the household;
- A property in another district;
- A building that cannot legally be occupied; or
- A unit requiring substantial repairs.
In each case, the court must determine whether the statutory concept of an “appropriate residence suitable for occupation” has actually been satisfied.
The Rule Generally Applies Only to Residential Leases
Article 352/3 is directed at the tenant’s ability to meet a residential accommodation need.
It therefore generally applies where the rented property is used as a home. It does not ordinarily provide an eviction ground for a tenant occupying a shop, office, warehouse or other property solely as a workplace.
The fact that Article 352 appears within the broader section governing residential and roofed workplace leases does not make every paragraph equally applicable to every property type. The third paragraph specifically compares the rented home with another residence suitable for occupation.
Accordingly, a landlord cannot ordinarily evict a commercial tenant from a shop merely because the tenant owns an apartment in the same district.
Similarly, a company renting an office will not ordinarily fall within a legal provision based on the residence owned by the tenant or a cohabiting spouse.
Mixed-use properties may require closer examination. If the agreement identifies the premises as both a residence and workplace, the actual principal use, zoning status and contractual purpose may become relevant.
The Other Property Must Belong to the Tenant or Cohabiting Spouse
The alternative residence must generally belong to:
- The tenant; or
- The spouse who lives together with the tenant.
A home owned by the tenant’s parent, child, sibling, partner or another relative will not ordinarily satisfy Article 352/3 merely because the tenant might potentially be allowed to live there.
The legislation refers specifically to the tenant and the spouse living together with the tenant.
Therefore, the following situations do not automatically create this eviction ground:
- A home owned by the tenant’s mother;
- A residence belonging to an adult child;
- A house owned by an unmarried partner;
- A family-owned property in which the tenant has no proprietary right;
- A company residence owned by the tenant’s employer; or
- A property that the tenant may use only with the owner’s permission.
The landlord should verify ownership through current title records rather than relying on informal information, social media posts or assumptions based on the tenant’s family wealth.
The Meaning of “Spouse Living Together”
The statute does not refer to every person to whom the tenant is legally married. It refers to the spouse living together with the tenant.
This means that the marital and household relationship must be examined.
Where the spouses live together as a family, a residence owned by either spouse may satisfy the ownership condition.
Where the spouses are permanently separated, are living in different homes or are subject to a judicial separation arrangement, a residence owned by the non-cohabiting spouse may not provide a genuine alternative home for the tenant.
The court may examine:
- Official address records;
- Family-home declarations;
- Population records;
- Witness evidence;
- Utility records;
- Divorce or separation proceedings;
- The actual household structure; and
- Whether the spouses genuinely maintain a common life.
A purely formal marriage record may not be enough if the spouses do not live together and the tenant has no realistic right to occupy the other spouse’s residence.
The Alternative Property Must Be a Residence
The property must be suitable in legal and physical character for residential occupation.
Ownership of the following will not ordinarily be sufficient by itself:
- A shop;
- An office;
- Agricultural land;
- An undeveloped parcel;
- A warehouse;
- A garage;
- A storage unit;
- A hotel room without an independent residential right;
- A ruin; or
- An unauthorised structure that cannot lawfully be occupied.
The title deed description is important but may not always be decisive.
A property registered as an office may in some exceptional circumstances have lawful residential characteristics, while a property registered as a residence may be physically or legally unusable.
The court may review:
- The land-registry classification;
- Zoning records;
- Construction and occupancy documents;
- The actual physical condition;
- Municipal records;
- Utility connections;
- Independent-unit characteristics; and
- Whether permanent residential occupation is lawful.
Same District or Township Municipal Boundaries
The alternative residence must be located within the same district or township municipal boundaries as the rented home.
This is a stricter geographical test than ownership within the same province or metropolitan municipality.
The legislative reasoning expressly indicates that the current law moved away from treating an entire metropolitan municipality as the relevant area. The district or township boundary is now the principal statutory reference.
For example, where a tenant rents a home in one Istanbul district but owns a residence in another Istanbul district, the mere fact that both properties are within İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality does not automatically satisfy the statutory wording.
Similarly, owning a home elsewhere in the same province may not be enough if it is outside the district or township municipal boundaries in which the rented property is located.
The following are generally insufficient on their own:
- Same province;
- Same metropolitan municipality;
- Neighbouring district;
- Short driving distance;
- Same public transport line; or
- Same general urban region.
The formal administrative boundary must be established.
Title records, municipal maps and official address information may be used to determine whether both properties fall within the required area.
Administrative Boundary Changes
Municipal and district boundaries may change over time.
A neighbourhood may be transferred to another district, township municipalities may be abolished or administrative structures may be reorganised.
The relevant boundary should be determined according to the legally effective administrative structure at the time the eviction right is exercised.
Where a boundary change creates uncertainty, the parties may need to obtain:
- Official municipal maps;
- Address registration records;
- District-governorate information;
- Land-registry location records;
- Municipal council decisions; and
- Relevant legislative documents.
A landlord should not rely only on colloquial descriptions of an area. A property commonly described as belonging to a particular locality may officially fall within a different district.
What Does “Suitable for Occupation” Mean?
Suitability is the central element of an Article 352/3 dispute.
The alternative residence must not merely exist. It must be capable of reasonably meeting the tenant’s accommodation needs.
The assessment has both objective and subjective elements.
Objective Suitability
Objective suitability concerns the property itself.
The court may examine whether the residence has:
- Safe access;
- Electricity and water;
- Heating or reasonable heating capacity;
- Functional kitchen and bathroom facilities;
- Structural safety;
- Lawful residential status;
- Adequate physical condition;
- Sufficient rooms;
- Accessibility;
- Basic sanitary conditions; and
- The possibility of immediate or reasonably achievable occupation.
A building that is seriously damaged, officially unsafe or lacking essential facilities may not be suitable.
Subjective Suitability
Subjective suitability concerns the tenant and household.
The court may examine:
- Family size;
- Ages of children;
- Health conditions;
- Disabilities;
- Social circumstances;
- Employment;
- Education needs;
- Household structure;
- Necessary care arrangements;
- Location-related needs; and
- Reasonable standards of accommodation.
In a 2018 decision, the Court of Cassation held that it was necessary to examine whether the tenant’s other property was suitable in light of the tenant’s status, family needs and household size. A simple expert comparison showing that the rented residence had superior qualities was not sufficient for a final decision without a fuller suitability assessment.
Size and Number of Rooms
The number of rooms and usable floor area are relevant but not mechanically decisive.
A studio apartment may be suitable for one person but unsuitable for a large family.
Likewise, a smaller residence is not automatically unsuitable merely because the rented property is larger or more luxurious.
The court does not necessarily protect the tenant’s preference to remain in the better property. The question is whether the alternative home provides reasonable accommodation in light of the tenant’s actual circumstances.
Relevant considerations may include:
- Number of household members;
- Whether children require separate rooms;
- Whether an elderly relative lives with the tenant;
- Accessibility for a disabled household member;
- Necessary working space;
- Actual usable area;
- Building access; and
- Health-related requirements.
A tenant cannot defeat the claim merely by showing that the rented home has a better view, newer fittings or a more valuable location.
On the other hand, a property that is plainly inadequate for the tenant’s family may not satisfy Article 352/3.
Health and Accessibility Considerations
A residence may be physically complete but unsuitable because of the tenant’s health or disability.
Examples may include:
- A high-floor apartment without an elevator for a mobility-impaired tenant;
- A building inaccessible to a wheelchair user;
- A location far from essential treatment;
- A property creating a serious respiratory or environmental risk;
- A residence unsuitable for necessary home-care equipment; or
- A layout that cannot accommodate a disabled family member.
The tenant should support such objections with medical reports, disability documentation, building records and expert evidence.
General assertions of inconvenience may not be sufficient. The tenant should demonstrate how the property’s features materially prevent reasonable occupation.
Is a More Distant Workplace or School Relevant?
The geographical requirement is already limited to the same district or township.
Nevertheless, location within that boundary may still affect subjective suitability in exceptional cases.
The court may consider whether moving would create a serious and unreasonable difficulty relating to:
- Disability;
- Essential care;
- Children’s educational needs;
- Medical treatment;
- Night-shift employment;
- Lack of transportation;
- Safety; or
- Another compelling household circumstance.
Ordinary commuting inconvenience will not necessarily make the property unsuitable.
A tenant cannot generally reject the alternative home solely because it is less prestigious, less central or requires a longer journey within the same district.
What If the Tenant’s Property Is Rented to Another Person?
The fact that the tenant’s own residence is occupied by another tenant does not produce an automatic answer.
The court should investigate:
- The existing rental agreement;
- Its duration;
- Whether it is genuine;
- Whether the tenant can legally recover possession;
- Whether an eviction process is pending;
- When occupation may realistically become available; and
- Whether the arrangement was created to prevent the landlord’s claim.
The Court of Cassation’s 2018 decision specifically required further investigation into whether the tenant’s other property was rented and whether it was genuinely suitable for the tenant’s use.
A landlord may argue that the tenant can seek possession of the owned residence through a need-based eviction process.
The tenant may argue that the property is not presently available and that obtaining possession is uncertain or legally impossible within a reasonable period.
The result depends on the individual facts rather than a universal rule that every rented-out property is either suitable or unsuitable.
What If Another Person Has a Usufruct or Residence Right?
A tenant may hold bare ownership of a property while another person has:
- A usufruct right;
- A registered residence right;
- A life interest;
- A long-term lease;
- A family-home right; or
- Another legally protected right of use.
In such cases, ownership alone may not give the tenant the present legal ability to occupy the residence.
The court should examine the title deed and the scope of registered rights.
If a third party has an enforceable right preventing the tenant from using the property, the residence may not qualify as a genuine available alternative.
The tenant should submit current land-registry records and the documents creating the third-party right.
Co-Owned and Inherited Properties
An undivided ownership share does not always provide an enforceable right to occupy a specific residence.
For example, a tenant may inherit a small share in a building together with several relatives. The tenant may not have exclusive possession of any particular apartment.
The court should examine:
- The tenant’s ownership percentage;
- Whether the property is held under shared or joint ownership;
- Whether a particular unit has been allocated;
- Whether the other co-owners consent to occupation;
- Existing partition proceedings;
- Actual use;
- Third-party possession; and
- Whether the tenant can realistically occupy the property.
A 5% share in a family property will not necessarily be treated in the same way as full ownership of an immediately available apartment.
Conversely, where a specific residence has been definitively allocated to the tenant and may be occupied, the absence of completed title formalities may not always prevent the court from examining the substantive housing right. Long-standing judicial precedent has, for example, recognised a definitively allocated cooperative residence as relevant even before individual title registration.
Summer Houses and Seasonal Residences
Ownership of a summer house does not automatically establish suitability for permanent occupation.
The court may consider:
- Whether the property is suitable for year-round use;
- Heating;
- Water and electricity supply;
- Road access during winter;
- Zoning status;
- Distance from essential services;
- Structural condition;
- Household needs; and
- Whether the property is actually within the required district boundary.
A coastal residence used only during summer may still be suitable if it is physically and legally capable of permanent occupation.
Conversely, a seasonal structure without essential infrastructure may not qualify.
The label “summer house” is not decisive. Actual characteristics and lawful usability must be proven.
Property Under Construction
An unfinished apartment or property purchased from a development project is not necessarily an available residence.
The court may examine:
- Construction completion;
- Delivery date;
- Occupancy permission;
- Utility connections;
- Physical possession;
- Whether the project is delayed;
- Whether substantial work remains; and
- Whether legal occupation is currently possible.
A title deed showing land share or construction servitude may not be enough if the residence cannot actually be occupied.
If the property becomes complete and available before the lawsuit is filed or decided, the legal assessment may change according to the timing and circumstances.
The Landlord Must Not Have Known at Contract Formation
Article 352/3 protects the tenant where the landlord knowingly entered into the rental relationship despite being aware of the tenant’s alternative residence.
If the landlord knew about the property when the agreement was signed, the landlord cannot later rely on the same fact as an eviction ground.
The legislative reasoning explains that allowing termination despite such knowledge could produce results contrary to good faith.
Knowledge may be established through:
- Statements in the rental agreement;
- Written communications;
- Emails;
- Messages;
- Application documents;
- Previous negotiations;
- Witnesses;
- Identity and address forms;
- Statements by the estate agent; and
- Prior relationships between the parties.
For example, if the tenant expressly told the landlord that the owned residence was rented to another person and the landlord nevertheless signed the agreement, the landlord may have difficulty claiming ignorance later.
What If the Tenant Acquires the Property Later?
A tenant may acquire another home after the rental agreement has already been concluded.
This may occur through:
- Purchase;
- Inheritance;
- Donation;
- Marital property transfer;
- Court judgment;
- Cooperative allocation; or
- Completion of a construction project.
Where the alternative residence did not exist in the tenant’s ownership when the agreement was formed, the landlord could not have known about that ownership at the time.
The landlord may therefore potentially rely on Article 352/3 at the appropriate end of the rental period, provided that all other statutory requirements are satisfied.
However, the property must still be suitable and within the required geographical boundaries when the termination right is exercised.
What If the Tenant Sells the Property?
Ownership should be verified through a current title search before mediation and litigation.
If the tenant genuinely sells the residence before the landlord exercises the right, the ownership condition may no longer exist.
However, a transfer made after the tenant becomes aware of the eviction claim may be examined under the general principle of good faith, particularly where:
- The property is transferred to a close relative;
- No genuine sale payment exists;
- The tenant continues controlling the property;
- A rapid transfer is followed by continued use;
- The transaction appears simulated; or
- The purpose is clearly to defeat the landlord’s statutory right.
The landlord may need to investigate whether the title transfer is genuine and whether a separate legal challenge is available.
The eviction court will not necessarily disregard a registered transfer automatically. Clear evidence is required where simulation or abuse of rights is alleged.
The Landlord Does Not Need a Personal Housing Requirement
This eviction ground is different from eviction based on the landlord’s own need under Articles 350 and 351.
Under Article 352/3, the landlord does not have to prove that:
- The landlord personally needs the property;
- A child or parent will move in;
- The landlord is living in rented accommodation;
- The property will be used as a workplace;
- Another landlord-owned residence is unsuitable; or
- A purchaser has an urgent housing requirement.
The legal ground arises from the tenant’s ownership of another suitable residence and the landlord’s lack of knowledge.
Therefore, the landlord may seek termination even if the landlord intends to sell the property, keep it vacant or rent it to another person after lawful recovery of possession.
No Special Three-Year Re-Letting Prohibition
Article 355 imposes a three-year re-letting restriction where possession was obtained because of the landlord’s housing or workplace need or because of reconstruction and development.
The text does not extend that special prohibition to eviction under Article 352/3.
Accordingly, a landlord who obtains possession because the tenant owns another suitable residence is not ordinarily subject to the same statutory three-year restriction.
The landlord may generally:
- Rent the property to another tenant;
- Sell it;
- Use it personally;
- Renovate it;
- Keep it vacant; or
- Use it for another lawful purpose.
This distinction is important because the landlord’s future intention is not an element of the Article 352/3 action.
When Must the Eviction Lawsuit Be Filed?
Article 352/3 requires the lawsuit to be filed within one month beginning from the end of the rental agreement or relevant rental period.
The correct date depends on whether the agreement is fixed-term or indefinite-term.
Fixed-Term Rental Agreements
For a fixed-term residential lease, the landlord may bring the action within one month following the end of the relevant contractual or extended rental period.
For example, if the annual rental period ends on 31 August, the one-month filing period ordinarily begins on 1 September.
The landlord should review:
- The original commencement date;
- The agreed duration;
- Renewal provisions;
- Later agreements;
- Rent protocols; and
- Whether a genuinely new contract changed the rental period.
Indefinite-Term Rental Agreements
For an indefinite-term lease, the landlord must first comply with the applicable general termination periods and determine the valid termination date.
The one-month action period then begins from that properly calculated date.
Incorrect classification of the agreement may lead to the case being filed prematurely or too late.
Is a Prior Eviction Notice Required?
Article 352/3 does not expressly require a separate warning notice as a substantive condition before filing the action.
The landlord’s right is based on the existence of the alternative suitable residence and timely litigation.
Nevertheless, a written notice is strongly recommended.
The notice may:
- Identify the discovered property;
- State the Article 352/3 ground;
- Request voluntary evacuation;
- Clarify the end of the rental period;
- Invite settlement;
- Support the mediation process; and
- Preserve the lawsuit period under Article 353.
A notarial notice provides reliable evidence of content and service.
Extending the Filing Period Under Article 353
Article 353 permits the landlord to extend the period for filing certain rental termination actions.
Where the landlord informs the tenant in writing, no later than the statutory deadline for filing the action, that an eviction lawsuit will be brought, the lawsuit period is extended for one rental year.
For example, if the ordinary one-month period expires on 30 September, the landlord may preserve the right by serving a qualifying written notification before that date.
The notice should clearly state the intention to file an eviction action based on the tenant’s ownership of another suitable residence.
A vague request asking the tenant to “consider moving” may not provide the same protection.
Mandatory Mediation Before the Lawsuit
Rental disputes are generally subject to mandatory mediation before litigation.
Article 18/B of the Mediation Law includes disputes arising from rental relationships, except for the specific non-judicial eviction procedures under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.
An Article 352/3 claim must be pursued by lawsuit rather than the special direct enforcement route. Therefore, the landlord must ordinarily apply for mediation before filing the eviction action.
The mediation application should include:
- The rental agreement;
- The rented property;
- The tenant’s alternative property;
- Title information;
- The same-district condition;
- The landlord’s lack of knowledge;
- The end of the rental period;
- The requested evacuation date; and
- Any proposed settlement.
The statutory filing period does not run during the period from the mediation application until the final report is issued.
Nevertheless, the safest practice is to submit the mediation application within the one-month period beginning from the end of the rental term.
If the parties do not reach an agreement, the mediator issues a final non-settlement report and the landlord may file the eviction case.
Can the Landlord Use Direct Enforcement?
No. Article 352/3 provides termination through a lawsuit.
This ground should be distinguished from a written eviction undertaking under Article 352/1, which may allow the landlord to choose between enforcement proceedings and litigation.
Where the tenant owns another suitable residence, the landlord cannot obtain eviction simply by filing a non-judicial enforcement request based solely on that ownership.
The factual issues generally require full judicial examination, including:
- Ownership;
- The geographical boundary;
- Physical condition;
- Household suitability;
- Cohabitation with the spouse;
- The landlord’s knowledge; and
- The litigation deadline.
Which Court Handles the Case?
The Civil Court of Peace, known as the Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi, generally has subject-matter jurisdiction over rental disputes regardless of the financial value of the claim.
Territorial jurisdiction may generally be connected with:
- The tenant’s residence;
- The place where the rental agreement is performed;
- The location of the rented property; or
- Another legally valid jurisdiction rule.
The landlord should file the action against every contractual tenant whose rights will be terminated.
If several people signed the rental agreement as tenants, filing the case against only one person may create a procedural problem.
Who May File the Action?
The wording of Article 352/3 grants the action to the landlord.
The claimant does not necessarily have to be the registered owner if another person validly concluded the agreement as landlord.
This differs from the former legislation, which referred more narrowly to the property owner. The current statutory wording recognises that a valid rental agreement may be concluded by a person other than the registered owner.
However, the claimant must establish:
- The existence of the rental relationship;
- Landlord status;
- Authority to request termination; and
- The right to recover possession.
Where ownership has changed, the purchaser generally succeeds to the existing rental relationship, but the lease history and knowledge requirement should be assessed carefully.
Evidence Required from the Landlord
The landlord should prepare a detailed evidentiary file.
Relevant evidence may include:
- The rental agreement;
- Later renewal documents;
- Current title records for the alternative residence;
- Historical title records;
- Official address information;
- Municipal boundary records;
- Photographs;
- Valuation or construction reports;
- Occupancy documents;
- Utility records;
- Family and population records;
- Evidence concerning the cohabiting spouse;
- Communications showing lack of knowledge;
- The written eviction notice;
- Proof of service;
- The mediation final report; and
- Evidence concerning the end of the rental period.
A title deed alone establishes ownership but may not establish suitability.
The landlord should be prepared to prove that the residence is physically, legally and socially appropriate for occupation by the tenant’s household.
On-Site Inspection and Expert Examination
The court may conduct an on-site inspection of the alternative residence and appoint an expert.
The expert may be asked to assess:
- Physical condition;
- Floor area;
- Number of rooms;
- Utilities;
- Structural safety;
- Heating;
- Access;
- Zoning and residential status;
- Occupancy;
- Distance and transport;
- Accessibility; and
- Whether the property meets the household’s needs.
The Court of Cassation has held that a proper decision requires investigation of both the objective features of the residence and the tenant’s social and family circumstances.
The expert should not decide the ultimate legal question. The judge determines suitability after considering the technical findings and the parties’ circumstances.
Possible Tenant Defences
A tenant may oppose the action by arguing that:
- The alternative property is outside the same district or township.
- The property is not legally a residence.
- The tenant does not own the property.
- The property belongs to another relative.
- The spouse does not live with the tenant.
- The residence is too small for the household.
- It is structurally unsafe.
- It is uninhabitable.
- It lacks essential utilities.
- A third party holds an enforceable use right.
- The tenant owns only a minor undivided share.
- The residence is lawfully occupied by another tenant.
- The landlord knew about the property when the agreement was signed.
- The lawsuit was filed outside the one-month period.
- Article 353 notice was ineffective.
- Mandatory mediation was not completed.
- Not all contractual tenants were included.
- The claimant is not the landlord.
- The case was filed before the relevant rental period ended.
The tenant should support each defence with documents rather than general statements.
Does Regular Rent Payment Prevent Eviction?
No.
Article 352/3 is not based on payment default.
A tenant may have paid every rental instalment on time and still face termination if all conditions concerning the alternative suitable residence exist.
Likewise, the landlord does not need to send a 30-day payment notice or prove two justified notices.
The tenant must continue paying rent while the rental relationship and occupation continue.
Failure to pay may create a separate default and enforcement dispute.
Rent Payments During Mediation and Litigation
The tenant should continue paying the contractually due rent until the property is lawfully returned or the rental obligation otherwise ends.
Receipt of an eviction notice does not suspend the payment duty.
The landlord may accept rent during mediation and litigation without necessarily abandoning the Article 352/3 claim, particularly where payments are accepted under an appropriate reservation.
Both parties should describe bank transfers clearly by identifying the relevant month.
Unclear payments may create separate disputes over whether the rent was paid and whether the landlord accepted renewal of the relationship.
Can the Landlord Change the Locks?
No.
Even where the tenant clearly owns another residence, the landlord cannot use self-help measures.
The landlord must not:
- Change the locks;
- Remove the tenant’s possessions;
- Disconnect utilities;
- Block access;
- Enter without permission;
- Threaten the tenant; or
- Attempt physical removal.
If the tenant does not leave voluntarily, the landlord must complete mediation, obtain an eviction judgment and recover possession through the enforcement office.
Ownership of the rented property and proof of another residence do not authorise the landlord to bypass judicial procedure.
Settlement Through Mediation
The parties may resolve the dispute without a final judgment.
A mediation settlement may regulate:
- The exact evacuation date;
- Additional moving time;
- Rent payable until handover;
- Security deposit return;
- Utility and management expenses;
- Property inspection;
- Key delivery;
- Moving assistance;
- Waiver of further claims; and
- Enforcement consequences if the tenant fails to leave.
The agreement should contain definite dates and amounts.
A provision stating that the tenant will leave “when the owned residence becomes available” may create further uncertainty.
The parties should also clarify whether the tenant’s other residence is occupied and whether additional time is required to recover it.
Return of the Property
When the tenant leaves, the parties should sign a written handover report.
The report should identify:
- Date and time of delivery;
- Keys;
- Access cards;
- Meter readings;
- Furniture and fixtures;
- Visible damage;
- Outstanding rent;
- Common expenses;
- Security deposit;
- Utility accounts; and
- Reserved claims.
Removing belongings from the property does not always prove that legal possession was returned.
The tenant should return every means of access and obtain written confirmation that the landlord has taken possession.
Security Deposit After Eviction
The landlord cannot retain the deposit automatically merely because an eviction judgment was obtained.
The deposit may secure legitimate and provable claims such as:
- Unpaid rent;
- Permitted ancillary expenses;
- Damage exceeding ordinary wear;
- Missing fixtures;
- Unreturned keys; and
- Other obligations arising from the agreement.
The landlord should inspect the property promptly and provide an itemised calculation.
Ordinary ageing, normal paint deterioration and repairs belonging to the landlord should not be charged automatically to the tenant.
Foreign Tenants and Properties Abroad
The same principal rules apply to foreign tenants renting residential property in Turkey.
However, a residence owned by the tenant in another country does not satisfy the requirement that the property be within the same district or township municipal boundaries.
Likewise, ownership of a home elsewhere in Turkey will not be enough if it is outside the required local boundary.
Foreign parties should pay particular attention to:
- Correct Turkish address records;
- Translations;
- Title searches;
- Powers of attorney;
- Mediation invitations;
- Notification documents; and
- Court deadlines.
A foreign tenant should not ignore a Turkish mediation or court document merely because the alternative property issue is disputed.
Common Mistakes Made by Landlords
The most common landlord mistake is assuming that any property in the tenant’s name is sufficient.
Other errors include:
- Relying on a property in another district;
- Relying on a shop or land parcel;
- Ignoring household size;
- Failing to investigate physical condition;
- Ignoring third-party rights;
- Filing against a tenant because a parent owns a home;
- Relying on a non-cohabiting spouse’s property;
- Filing outside the one-month period;
- Failing to complete mandatory mediation;
- Filing direct enforcement instead of a lawsuit;
- Failing to prove lack of knowledge;
- Excluding one of several tenants; and
- Using self-help measures.
A title record should be treated as the beginning of the investigation, not the end.
Common Mistakes Made by Tenants
Tenants may also make strategic and evidentiary mistakes.
Common errors include:
- Assuming the rented-out property can never be considered suitable;
- Failing to submit the other rental agreement;
- Making unsupported claims that the property is too small;
- Hiding ownership records;
- Transferring the property suspiciously after receiving notice;
- Failing to document disability or health needs;
- Ignoring mediation;
- Stopping rent payments;
- Failing to challenge the same-district condition;
- Failing to prove that the landlord knew about the property; and
- Returning keys without written evidence.
The tenant should present a clear and documented explanation of why the other residence cannot reasonably meet the household’s needs.
Practical Checklist for Landlords
Before commencing the process, the landlord should:
- Confirm that the rented property is used as a residence.
- Obtain the original rental agreement.
- Determine the exact rental-period end date.
- Obtain current and historical title records.
- Verify that the alternative property belongs to the tenant or cohabiting spouse.
- Confirm the administrative district boundaries.
- Investigate physical and legal suitability.
- Determine whether the residence is occupied.
- Review household size and social circumstances.
- Collect evidence showing lack of knowledge at contract formation.
- Serve a detailed written notice.
- Use Article 353 if an extension is necessary.
- Apply for mandatory mediation within the statutory period.
- File the lawsuit promptly after the final mediation report.
- Request inspection and expert examination.
- Recover possession only through lawful enforcement.
Practical Checklist for Tenants
After receiving an Article 352/3 claim, the tenant should:
- Review the title records.
- Verify the official district boundaries.
- Determine whether the spouse actually lives with the tenant.
- Collect evidence of household size.
- Document health and accessibility needs.
- Obtain photographs and technical reports.
- Submit existing rental or third-party use documents.
- Identify usufruct, residence or co-ownership restrictions.
- Preserve evidence showing the landlord’s prior knowledge.
- Check the rental-period end date.
- Verify the one-month filing period.
- Attend mandatory mediation.
- Continue paying rent.
- Avoid suspicious property transfers.
- Obtain written evidence of final key delivery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a tenant be evicted merely because the tenant owns a house?
Not automatically. The residence must be within the same district or township municipal boundaries and must be suitable for the tenant’s household.
Does a house in another district count?
Ordinarily no. The statute requires the alternative residence to be within the same district or township municipal boundaries.
Does a house elsewhere in the same metropolitan city count?
Not necessarily. The law uses district or township boundaries rather than treating the entire metropolitan municipality as one area.
Can the spouse’s property justify eviction?
Yes, where the spouse lives together with the tenant and the residence satisfies the other statutory requirements.
Does a parent’s property justify eviction?
No. A residence owned only by the tenant’s parent or another relative does not ordinarily satisfy Article 352/3.
Does the landlord need the property personally?
No. Personal housing need is not required under this eviction ground.
Does the rule apply to shops and offices?
It generally applies to residential rental relationships, not premises rented solely as commercial workplaces.
What if the tenant’s house is smaller?
A smaller residence may still be suitable. The court examines family size, social circumstances and actual household needs.
What if the property is rented to another tenant?
That does not create an automatic result. The court examines the existing rental relationship, availability and practical suitability.
What if the tenant owns only part of a house?
The court examines whether the ownership share gives the tenant a genuine ability to occupy a specific suitable residence.
What if the landlord knew about the house?
The landlord cannot ordinarily rely on Article 352/3 if the landlord knew about the alternative residence when the agreement was concluded.
When must the lawsuit be filed?
Generally within one month beginning from the end of the relevant rental period.
Can the filing period be extended?
A qualifying written notice under Article 353 may extend the filing period for one rental year.
Is mediation required?
Yes. Mandatory mediation must generally be completed before the lawsuit.
Can the landlord start direct eviction enforcement?
No. Article 352/3 requires termination through a lawsuit.
Which court hears the case?
The Civil Court of Peace generally has subject-matter jurisdiction.
Can the landlord rent the property to someone else afterward?
Yes. The special three-year re-letting restriction applying to need-based and reconstruction evictions does not ordinarily apply to Article 352/3.
Can the landlord change the locks after discovering the other house?
No. Possession must be recovered through voluntary handover or formal enforcement of an eviction judgment.
Conclusion
Eviction when a tenant owns another suitable residence is a specific and strictly regulated termination ground under Article 352/3 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.
The existence of any property in the tenant’s name is not sufficient.
The landlord must establish that the tenant or spouse living together with the tenant has another residence within the same district or township municipal boundaries.
That residence must be genuinely suitable for occupation. Suitability must be assessed according to the property’s physical and legal condition, household size, social circumstances, health requirements, accessibility and actual availability.
A land-registry record proves ownership but does not automatically prove suitability.
A residence owned by the tenant’s parent, child, sibling or unrelated partner does not ordinarily qualify. The spouse’s residence is relevant only where the spouse lives together with the tenant.
The landlord must also prove that the alternative residence was not known when the rental agreement was formed. A landlord who knowingly rented the property despite being aware of the tenant’s other suitable home cannot ordinarily use the same fact later as an eviction ground.
The case must be filed within one month beginning from the end of the relevant rental period. A timely written notice under Article 353 may extend the right to file for one rental year.
Mandatory mediation must generally be completed before litigation, and the Civil Court of Peace hears the eviction claim.
The landlord cannot use direct enforcement solely on this ground and cannot change the locks or remove the tenant personally.
Unlike an eviction based on the landlord’s own need or reconstruction, Article 352/3 does not ordinarily impose a special three-year prohibition on renting the property to another person afterward.
Because the outcome depends on title records, administrative boundaries, household circumstances, suitability evidence and strict procedural periods, both landlords and tenants should obtain an individual legal assessment before initiating or defending the process.
Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information concerning eviction where a tenant or cohabiting spouse owns another suitable residence in Turkey as of July 2026. It does not constitute legal advice. Each matter must be assessed according to the rental agreement, title records, municipal boundaries, household circumstances, property condition, landlord knowledge, mediation documents and applicable judicial practice.
No Responses