Assessment Of Certain Additional Obligations Imposed On Tenants In Lease Agreements Under The Turkish Code Of Obligations

I. Introduction

Lease agreements are a type of contract in which the mutual obligations of the parties are significantly regulated by law. However, particularly in residential and commercial property leases, it is observed in practice that the parties enter into various contractual arrangements that go beyond the obligations provided for in the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TBK”).

Examples of such provisions include requiring the tenant to bear certain maintenance and repair costs, using the leased property in accordance with specific standards, obtaining certain types of insurance, returning the property under specific conditions at the end of the lease, paying a penalty in the event of early termination, or having the tenant cover certain expenses.

In this regard, the most fundamental legal question that arises in practice is whether the parties, within the scope of the principle of contractual freedom, may impose additional obligations on the tenant that are not regulated in the TBK, and if so, within what limits such provisions may be applied.

II. The Legal Nature and Practical Aspects of Additional Obligations Imposed on the Tenant

Under Article 26 of the TBK, the parties may freely determine the content of a contract. However, this freedom cannot exceed the limits prescribed by law. Consequently, the mere fact that an additional obligation has been imposed on the tenant in a lease agreement does not, by itself, mean that this obligation is valid and enforceable. Pursuant to Article 27 of the TBK, contracts that violate mandatory provisions of the law are absolutely void. For this reason, the parties’ freedom of contract is not unlimited.

TBK sets forth the tenant’s primary obligations under lease agreements. In this regard, the tenant’s fundamental obligations include: paying the rent, using the leased property with due care, showing due respect to the occupants of the premises and neighbors, and paying for cleaning and maintenance expenses arising from normal use.

Articles 339 and following of the TBK regulate residential and commercial property leases. Pursuant to the provision titled “Prohibition on Provisions Detrimental to the Tenant,” it is stipulated that no payment obligation other than the rent and ancillary expenses may be imposed on the tenant, and that agreements stipulating the payment of a penalty clause or the acceleration of subsequent rent payments in the event of late payment of rent are void.

1. Provisions Regarding Penalty Clauses and the Acceleration of Subsequent Rent Payments in the Event of Late Payment of Rent

One of the provisions frequently encountered in practice is the stipulation in lease agreements that the tenant must make additional payments beyond the rent and ancillary expenses. The mere fact that a payment obligation is explicitly stipulated in the contract does not, by itself, mean that this provision is valid. The legal nature of the payment obligation, the consideration for which it is intended, and whether it constitutes a payment other than rent or ancillary expenses under Article 346 of the TBK must be evaluated separately. Contract provisions stipulating that the tenant must pay a penalty or that subsequent rent payments will become due in the event of late payment of rent are invalid under Article 346 of the TBK.

2. Termination of the Lease by the Tenant Before the Lease Term Expires

Conversely, provisions requiring the tenant to pay a penalty for terminating the contract before the lease term expires—unlike penalty clauses related to late payment of rent—must be evaluated separately, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the manner in which the contract was terminated. Indeed, the Court of Cassation does not directly deem penalty clauses regarding early termination to be void under Article 346 of the TBK; rather, it examines to which act the provision is linked and its applicability in the specific case. Indeed, in a decision rendered by the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation¹, the provision in the lease agreement stipulating that the rent for the current year would be collected as compensation if the tenant terminated the contract was not evaluated under Article 346 of the TBK as “an obligation to pay other than rent or incidental expenses,” but rather as a penalty clause under Articles 179 et seq. of the TBK, and ruled that the tenant was required to pay the penalty.

3. Contractual Provisions Regarding Grounds for Eviction Not Provided for by Law

Another issue encountered in practice when drafting lease agreements is the provision stipulating that the tenant must vacate the leased premises if the landlord provides notice a certain period before the end of the lease term. Under the heading “Termination of Leases for Residential and Commercial Premises with a Roof,” Article 347 of the TBK, available at , 347, available at under the heading “Termination of Leases for Residential and Commercial Premises,” provides that the landlord may not terminate the lease solely on the basis of the expiration of the lease term; however, at the end of the ten-year extension period, the landlord may terminate the lease without stating a reason, provided that notice is given at least three months prior to the end of each subsequent extension year. Recent decisions by the Court of Cassation also confirm that the landlord cannot terminate the lease solely on the grounds that the lease term has expired. Contract provisions granting the landlord the authority to terminate the lease agreement and evict the tenant without stating any reason, merely by providing advance notice within a specified period, are not considered valid in light of the mandatory provision set forth in Article 347 of the TBK. However, it is important to note that it is accepted in practice that a contract may stipulate a condition requiring the landlord to provide notice for a specific period before filing a lawsuit based on a ground for eviction provided for by law.

III. Conclusion

While imposing obligations on the tenant in lease agreements that go beyond those prescribed by law is generally possible within the scope of the parties’ freedom of contract, this freedom is specifically limited by the mandatory provisions of the TBK in residential and commercial property leases. In this context, the mere presence of a provision in the contract that is disadvantageous to the tenant does not, by itself, render the provision valid; the nature of the provision, the obligation to which it relates, and whether it is consistent with the mandatory provisions of the law must be evaluated separately. In particular, pursuant to Article 346 of the TBK, provisions imposing an additional payment obligation beyond the rent and ancillary expenses, penalty clauses linked to late payment of rent, and agreements stipulating that subsequent rent payments become due immediately are void. Conversely, penalty clauses linked to the tenant’s early termination of the contract and contractual provisions regarding eviction options not provided for by law must be evaluated separately, taking into account the nature of the provision and the relevant mandatory provisions of the law. Consequently, while the principle of contractual freedom is fundamental in lease agreements, this principle cannot be applied in a manner that would undermine the tenant’s legal position as guaranteed by law.

 Footnote

^{1 Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2024/1022, Decision No. 2025/632, Date: February 5, 2025}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.