The remarkable decision for tenants came from the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The Chamber ruled that the lawsuit regarding the refund of the allegedly overpaid amounts within the scope of the rental agreement cannot be rejected only on the grounds that the conditions for a "requisition case" are not met.
While the decision paved the way for the recovery of the money that the tenant claimed he overpaid during the rental relationship, it also revealed that the courts were not bound by the legal characterization used by the plaintiff.
In the case filed with the Polatlı 2nd Civil Court of Peace, the tenant stated that he made regular rent payments within the scope of the lease agreement with the starting date of August 3, 2022.
The tenant argued that the lessor made payments on the 15th of each month, according to the account reported by his wife and the actual agreement between the parties. However, he claimed that the defendant party threatened eviction and cut off electricity for economic reasons, and that he received excessive payments from him by unlawfully demanding constant increases during the rental period.
The tenant also stated that enforcement proceedings with a request for eviction were initiated against him for allegedly not paying the rent for August 2024.
Arguing that he overpaid 9 thousand 822 lira, taking into account the payments made until November 2024, the tenant requested that this amount be returned to him with the legal interest that will accrue as of October 15, 2024.
The defendant requested the dismissal of the case, claiming that the payments were made consensually and that the plaintiff had no legal interest in filing a lawsuit.
Polatlı 2nd Civil Court of Peace evaluated the plaintiff's request as a "sedition case".
The court concluded that a recovery lawsuit could only be filed for payments made within the scope of a finalized enforcement proceeding and under the threat of coercive enforcement.
The case was rejected on the grounds that the tenant made the final payment before the payment order was notified and the follow-up was finalized.
The court also awarded an attorney fee of 18 thousand lira in favor of the defendant, although the case value was 9 thousand 822 lira.
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the Ministry of Justice's request for appeal in the interest of law, found the approach of the first instance court unlawful in its decision dated May 5, 2026.
Drawing attention to Articles 26 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the Chamber emphasized that the judge is bound by the outcome of the parties' request, but has to determine the legal characterization of the events and the legal rules to be applied.
According to the Supreme Court, what is in question here is not the recovery of money paid under the threat of coercive enforcement within the scope of a finalized enforcement proceeding.
The dispute is about the refund of rental fees that are claimed to have been overcharged without a legal reason within the scope of the rental relationship.
For this reason, it is not binding on the court if the tenant calls his request "recovery".
The Supreme Court decided that the request in question should be evaluated not within the scope of the extortion case regulated in Article 72 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, but as a receivable case subject to general provisions based on unjust enrichment and return of overpayment.
The chamber stated that the first instance court should examine the merits of the case, evaluate the evidence of the parties and make a decision based on the result.
The Supreme Court found the rejection of the case solely on the grounds that the conditions for the recovery case were not met, contrary to procedure and law.
Another point that attracted attention in the Supreme Court decision was regarding attorney fees.
Although the case value was 9 thousand 822 liras, it was stated that paying 18 thousand liras of attorney fee in favor of the defendant was against the Attorney Minimum Fee Tariff in force at the date of the decision.
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals accepted the Ministry of Justice's request for appeal in the interest of law and overturned the decision of the Polatlı 2nd Civil Court of Peace in the interest of law, without affecting the outcome.
While a copy of the decision was sent to the Ministry of Justice, the file was sent to the first instance court.
The decision of the Supreme Court was published in the Official Gazette dated 19 August 2026.
