SON.TV\/ANKARA<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin kirac\u0131lar\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sahiplerini ve t\u00fcketicileri yak\u0131ndan ilgilendiren d\u00f6rt ayr\u0131 karar\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mland\u0131. Daire, farkl\u0131 mahkemelerce verilen kararlar\u0131 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz istemi \u00fczerine inceleyerek d\u00f6rt dosyada da kanun yarar\u0131na bozma karar\u0131 verdi.<\/p>\n
Kararlarda; tahliye istenen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n niteli\u011finin belirlenmesi, kira ili\u015fkisinin ve kira bedelinin ispat\u0131, kiralanan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra depozitonun hangi malikten istenebilece\u011fi ve yanl\u0131\u015f yak\u0131t verilmesinde t\u00fcketiciye kar\u015f\u0131 kimin sorumlu oldu\u011fu konular\u0131nda dikkat \u00e7eken hukuki de\u011ferlendirmeler yap\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n
TAHL\u0130YE DAVASINDA TA\u015eINMAZIN N\u0130TEL\u0130\u011e\u0130 ARA\u015eTIRILACAK<\/p>\n
\u0130lk karar Marmaris 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen tahliye davas\u0131na ili\u015fkin verildi.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 2026\/1042 Esas, 2026\/1405 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na g\u00f6re uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz, tapu kayd\u0131nda 19 bin 672,22 metrekare y\u00fcz\u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc ve \u201ctarla\u201d vasf\u0131nda bulunuyordu. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ise kiralanan\u0131n cinsi \u201carsa\u201d, mevcut durumu \u201ctarla\u201d olarak belirtilirken yerin yediemin deposu ve otopark olarak kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131 kaydedildi.<\/p>\n
\u0130lk derece mahkemesi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ihtiya\u00e7 nedeniyle tahliye edilmesi talebini reddetti.<\/p>\n
Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiralar\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlere mi yoksa genel kira h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine mi tabi oldu\u011funun belirlenebilmesi i\u00e7in mahallinde ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirterek karar\u0131 kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz etti.<\/p>\n
YARGITAY: \u00d6NCE \u201c\u00dcST\u00dcN VASIF\u201d BEL\u0130RLENMEL\u0130<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in tahliyesi talep edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u201c\u00fcst\u00fcn vasf\u0131n\u0131n\u201d belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n
Daire, kiralanan\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 durumunda T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiralar\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin, musakkaf yani \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 olmamas\u0131 halinde ise genel h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin uygulanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtti.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmadan kiralanan\u0131n galip vasf\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmedi\u011fine i\u015faret eden Yarg\u0131tay, karar\u0131n eksik incelemeyle verildi\u011fini belirledi.<\/p>\n
Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusunu kabul eden Daire, Marmaris 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin karar\u0131n\u0131 11 Mart 2026 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle kanun yarar\u0131na bozdu. \u0130nternet ortam\u0131ndaki karar kayd\u0131 da esas ve karar numaras\u0131 ile karar tarihini do\u011fruluyor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n K\u0130RA \u0130L\u0130\u015eK\u0130S\u0130N\u0130N VARLI\u011eI \u0130SPATLANAMADI<\/p>\n Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanan ikinci karar Yata\u011fan Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesindeki tahliye uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 2026\/3665 Esas, 2026\/2768 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda davac\u0131, kirac\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n kira borcunu \u00f6dememesi nedeniyle icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kendisine y\u00f6nelik hakaret, tehdit ve yaralama gibi eylemlerde bulunuldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek kira ili\u015fkisinin \u00e7ekilmez hale geldi\u011fini savundu ve kirac\u0131n\u0131n tahliyesini istedi.<\/p>\n \u0130lk derece mahkemesi davay\u0131 kabul ederek tahliyeye karar verdi.<\/p>\n Ancak dosyan\u0131n Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin \u00f6n\u00fcne geldi.<\/p>\n YAZILI K\u0130RA S\u00d6ZLE\u015eMES\u0130 DOSYADA YOKTU<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay incelemesinde taraflar aras\u0131nda yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi ile s\u00fcresinin bilinmedi\u011fi ve dinlenen tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131na g\u00f6re de taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira ili\u015fkisinin ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtildi.<\/p>\n Daire, kira ili\u015fkisinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihi, s\u00fcresi ve kira bedelini ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn davac\u0131 \u00fczerinde oldu\u011funa dikkat \u00e7ekti.<\/p>\n Davac\u0131n\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini ibraz edemedi\u011fi ve tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131yla da kira ili\u015fkisinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumda, mahkemenin davac\u0131ya yemin delilini hat\u0131rlatmas\u0131 ve daval\u0131ya yemin teklif edip etmeyece\u011fini sormas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtildi.<\/p>\n Bu yap\u0131lmadan karar verilmesi eksik inceleme olarak de\u011ferlendirildi.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz talebini kabul ederek karar\u0131 5 May\u0131s 2026 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle kanun yarar\u0131na bozdu. Karar\u0131n 2026\/3665 Esas, 2026\/2768 Karar numaras\u0131 ve tarihi internet \u00fczerindeki hukuk veri taban\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde yer al\u0131yor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n EV SATILDI\u011eINDA DEPOZ\u0130TOYU K\u0130M \u0130ADE EDECEK?<\/p>\n \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc karar ise kirac\u0131lar\u0131n s\u0131k kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 depozito uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu.<\/p>\n Gaziantep 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesindeki davada kirac\u0131, kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz i\u00e7in mal sahibine 300 ABD dolar\u0131 depozito \u00f6dedi\u011fini, kira ili\u015fkisi devam ederken ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak depozitonun kendisine iade edilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc.<\/p>\n Kirac\u0131, depozitonun iadesi amac\u0131yla ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 icra takibine yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n iptalini istedi.<\/p>\n Daval\u0131 eski malik ise kirac\u0131n\u0131n son kira bedelini \u00f6demedi\u011fini ve depozitonun kira bedeline kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu.<\/p>\n \u0130lk derece mahkemesi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fine sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yeni malikin kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraf\u0131 haline geldi\u011fini belirterek davay\u0131 pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle usulden reddetti.<\/p>\n DEPOZ\u0130TOYU ALAN ESK\u0130 MAL\u0130KE \u0130L\u0130\u015eK\u0130N \u00d6NEML\u0130 TESP\u0130T<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi ise farkl\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yapt\u0131.<\/p>\n Daire, T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 310. maddesi uyar\u0131nca kiralanan\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetinin el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi halinde yeni malikin kendili\u011finden kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraf\u0131 haline gelece\u011fini belirtti.<\/p>\n Ancak somut olayda depozitonun ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta eski malike \u00f6dendi\u011finin taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekildi.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay, depozitoyu teslim alan \u00f6nceki malikin bu g\u00fcvence bedelini yeni malike devretti\u011fini ispatlamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtti. Depozitonun yeni malike devredildi\u011finin kan\u0131tlanamamas\u0131 halinde, g\u00fcvence bedelini teslim alan \u00f6nceki malikin iade y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn devam edece\u011fi sonucuna vard\u0131.<\/p>\n Bu nedenle davan\u0131n yaln\u0131zca pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bulundu.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, 2026\/3664 Esas ve 2026\/2960 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyada 12 May\u0131s 2026 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle kanun yarar\u0131na bozma karar\u0131 verdi. Karar\u0131n k\u00fcnyesi ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z hukuk veri taban\u0131nda da 12 May\u0131s 2026 tarihiyle kay\u0131tl\u0131.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n YANLI\u015e YAKIT VER\u0130LEN ARA\u00c7TA SORUMLULUK KARARI<\/p>\n Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanan d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc karar ise t\u00fcketicileri ve akaryak\u0131t \u015firketlerini ilgilendiriyor.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 2026\/3961 Esas, 2026\/3360 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda bir t\u00fcketici, Petrol Ofisi\u2019nin bayisi konumundaki akaryak\u0131t istasyonundan arac\u0131na yak\u0131t ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak istasyon \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan araca yanl\u0131\u015f yak\u0131t konuldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc.<\/p>\n Yanl\u0131\u015f yak\u0131t ikmali sonras\u0131nda ara\u00e7ta ar\u0131za meydana geldi\u011fi, t\u00fcketicinin 59 bin 401,34 TL onar\u0131m bedeli \u00f6dedi\u011fi ve ayr\u0131ca farkl\u0131 dosyalarda tespit masraflar\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtildi.<\/p>\n T\u00fcketici Hakem Heyeti t\u00fcketicinin talebini kabul etti. Bunun \u00fczerine \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemiyle dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n YARGITAY \u201cSA\u011eLAYICI\u201d SORUMLULU\u011eUNA D\u0130KKAT \u00c7EKT\u0130<\/p>\n Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendiren Yarg\u0131tay, 6502 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcketicinin Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun kapsam\u0131nda \u201chizmet\u201d, \u201csa\u011flay\u0131c\u0131\u201d ve \u201cay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet\u201d h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini de\u011ferlendirdi.<\/p>\n Daire, dosyadaki bilgilere g\u00f6re arac\u0131n istasyon \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yanl\u0131\u015f yak\u0131tla dolduruldu\u011funu, \u015firketin istasyonu bayisi olarak internet sitesinde tan\u0131tt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve sunulan hizmetin t\u00fcketicinin bekledi\u011fi fayday\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131ran maddi eksiklik i\u00e7erdi\u011fini belirledi.<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay, ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmet nedeniyle sa\u011flay\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funun g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edilerek uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n yaln\u0131zca ay\u0131pl\u0131 hizmeti fiilen sunan akaryak\u0131t \u015firketine y\u00f6neltilmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle karar verilmesini usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 buldu.<\/p>\n Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz talebi kabul edilerek ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 1 Haziran 2026 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle kanun yarar\u0131na bozuldu.<\/p>\n D\u00d6RT KARAR DA KANUN YARARINA BOZULDU<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanan d\u00f6rt karar\u0131n\u0131n ortak noktas\u0131, ilk derece mahkemesi kararlar\u0131n\u0131n Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz incelemesine al\u0131nmas\u0131 oldu.<\/p>\n D\u00f6rt dosyada da Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n istemi kabul edildi ve kararlar HMK\u2019n\u0131n 363. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda kanun yarar\u0131na bozuldu.<\/p>\n Kanun yarar\u0131na bozma, kesinle\u015fmi\u015f uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta taraflar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yeni bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmuyor. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da bu yolun amac\u0131n\u0131n istinaf veya temyiz incelemesinden ge\u00e7memi\u015f hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 kararlar\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya konulmas\u0131 ve benzer uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda kanunun uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin i\u00e7tihat olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirtiyor. Kanun yarar\u0131na bozulan kararlar\u0131n Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mlanmas\u0131 da bu sistemin bir par\u00e7as\u0131.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n ET\u0130KETLER: #Yarg\u0131tay #Yarg\u0131tay3HukukDairesi #AdaletBakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 #ResmiGazete #Kirac\u0131 #EvSahibi #Kira #Tahliye #Depozito #T\u00fcketici #Yanl\u0131\u015fYak\u0131t #PetrolOfisi #KanunYarar\u0131naTemyiz #KanunYarar\u0131naBozma<\/p>\n Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi; ihtiya\u00e7 nedeniyle tahliye, kira ili\u015fkisinin ispat\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra depozitonun iadesi ve akaryak\u0131t istasyonunda yanl\u0131\u015f yak\u0131t verilmesinden do\u011fan zarara ili\u015fkin d\u00f6rt \u00f6nemli karara imza att\u0131. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz ba\u015fvurular\u0131 \u00fczerine verilen kararlar 1 Eyl\u00fcl 2026 tarihli Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mland\u0131.\u00a0Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SON.TV\/ANKARA Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin kirac\u0131lar\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sahiplerini ve t\u00fcketicileri yak\u0131ndan ilgilendiren d\u00f6rt ayr\u0131 karar\u0131 Resm\u00ee Gazete\u2019de yay\u0131mland\u0131. Daire, farkl\u0131 mahkemelerce verilen kararlar\u0131 Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kanun yarar\u0131na temyiz istemi \u00fczerine inceleyerek d\u00f6rt dosyada da kanun yarar\u0131na bozma karar\u0131 verdi. Kararlarda; tahliye istenen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n niteli\u011finin belirlenmesi, kira ili\u015fkisinin ve kira bedelinin ispat\u0131, kiralanan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-haberler"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.abchukuk.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}