Does a New Lease Cancel an Eviction Undertaking (Tahliye Taahhüdü)? Turkey's 2026 Yargıtay Ruling

What an eviction undertaking is — and when it is valid

Under Article 352/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, a tenant of a residential or roofed commercial property may give the landlord a written undertaking to vacate on a specified date. If the tenant does not leave, the landlord may terminate the tenancy by applying to the enforcement office or filing suit within one month of that date — no other ground required. It sits alongside the harder eviction grounds — the owner's need, reconstruction and tenant fault — that we cover in our landlord's guide to eviction in Turkey.

In its 2026 ruling, the Court restated the conditions on which the undertaking's validity depends: it must be in writing; it must be given by the tenant personally or through an authorised representative; it must state the vacating date; and it must be given after the property has been handed over to the tenant, a reasonable time into the tenancy — not extracted at the moment the lease itself is signed. That last condition exists because an undertaking signed together with the lease is not a free promise to leave; it is a condition of getting the keys, and the law refuses to enforce it on that basis. Undertakings signed at the outset, or signed blank and dated later, remain the most litigated corner of Turkish tenancy practice, and this ruling has now added a second battleground: what the parties signed afterwards.

The case: a Manavgat lease, a promise to leave, and a new contract

The dispute arose from a commercial lease in Manavgat, on the Antalya coast. The tenant, a tourism company, had signed an undertaking dated 23 November 2022 promising to vacate the premises by 28 September 2023. When the date passed, the landlord commenced enforcement proceedings on the strength of the undertaking. The tenant objected, arguing among other things that the undertaking had been extracted under pressure while the lease was running; the landlord then sued for annulment of the objection and eviction.

The trial court took the dispute seriously on its own terms: it obtained a Forensic Medicine Institute report, confirmed that the signature on the undertaking belonged to the tenant, and ordered eviction. Because of the monetary limits on appeal, that judgment was final the moment it was pronounced. On the surface, a routine win for the landlord.

Except for one fact sitting in the file. After the undertaking had been given, the parties had signed a new, notarised lease with a start date of 11 September 2024 — and the landlord's own counsel had filed a statement telling the court that the parties had come to terms and the case had become moot. The trial court ruled on the undertaking anyway, without ever asking what the new contract did to it.

Why the Ministry of Justice stepped in

Because the judgment was final, neither party could appeal it. Turkish procedure keeps one narrow instrument for exactly this situation: the appeal in the interest of the law under Article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. Where a final decision rests on a legal error, the Ministry of Justice may ask the Court of Cassation to review it — not to change the outcome between the parties, but to correct the legal position for everyone who comes after them. It is the mechanism through which Turkish law repairs precedent without reopening closed files, and it is used sparingly, which is itself a signal of how significant the Ministry considered the error here.

What the Court of Cassation held

The 3rd Civil Chamber — in decision E. 2026/2877, K. 2026/2766 of 5 May 2026, unanimous — agreed with the Ministry. A new lease signed after the undertaking is not a side document: it is a fresh expression of both parties' will to continue the tenancy, and it renews the legal relationship. Once the relationship is renewed, the earlier undertaking — a promise to end the old relationship on a stated date — has nothing left to operate on. It is void. A court asked to evict on the strength of such an undertaking must examine the later contract and its effect before ruling; deciding without that examination is contrary to law and procedure.

Because the route was an appeal in the interest of the law, the quashing was pronounced without affecting the outcome of the concrete case: the Manavgat eviction stood. What changed is the guidance. Trial courts across the country now have a published, unanimous Court of Cassation ruling telling them how these facts are to be handled — and parties on both sides of a tenancy have fair warning.

What this means for landlords

The practical rule for a landlord holding an eviction undertaking is now brutally simple: do not sign a new lease with that tenant unless you are prepared to lose the undertaking. The situations where this happens are rarely dramatic — they are administrative. The lease term rolls over and a new contract is drawn up "to update the rent". A bank or the tax office asks for a current lease. The property changes hands and the new owner signs fresh paperwork with the sitting tenant — a point worth weighing before buying property in Turkey that comes with a tenant attached. Each of these, on the logic of this ruling, renews the tenancy and voids the undertaking.

Where the rent genuinely needs adjusting, the safer instrument is an annex or protocol to the existing lease that changes the rent and nothing else — expressly stating that the existing lease continues and that it is not a new contract. Whether a given document renews the tenancy or merely amends it will be exactly the question courts ask after this ruling, so the drafting is not a formality. And a landlord who does conclude a new lease and still wants the exit option should obtain a fresh undertaking afterwards, mindful of the validity conditions above — given freely, after the renewed tenancy is underway, not stapled to the new contract at signature.

The one-month rule deserves repeating in the same breath: even a valid, surviving undertaking dies quietly if the landlord does not act on it. Enforcement or suit must be commenced within one month of the promised vacating date under Article 352/1. Between the deadline at one end and this ruling at the other, the undertaking has become a document that rewards landlords who manage it deliberately and punishes those who treat it as a drawer document.

What this means for tenants

For tenants, the ruling is a genuine shield — with edges worth understanding. A tenant who gave an undertaking early in the tenancy, and has since signed a new lease with the landlord, is in a materially stronger position: on this reasoning, the old promise no longer supports eviction. Tenants facing enforcement proceedings based on an undertaking should have every document signed after it examined, because a renewal contract in the file may end the matter. The wider set of tenant protections — deposits, the CPI rent cap, notice periods — sits in our guide to renting in Turkey as a foreigner.

The edges: not every piece of later paper is a new lease. A rent-increase protocol expressly continuing the existing contract is not a renewal in the sense of this ruling, and whether a specific document crosses the line is a legal question decided on its wording. And the ruling does nothing for the tenant who signed an undertaking and signed nothing afterwards — there, the undertaking remains fully enforceable if it meets the validity conditions. The Manavgat case itself is a reminder of how the other defences tend to fare: the tenant's claim of pressure went to a forensic examination that confirmed the signature, and the eviction was ordered. Signatures are hard to walk back in Turkish practice; documents signed later are now the stronger ground.

How much weight does the ruling carry?

Turkey is not a strict-precedent jurisdiction, and a chamber ruling — even one issued in the interest of the law — does not formally bind other courts the way a unification-of-jurisprudence decision would. But rulings of this type are published in the Official Gazette precisely so that trial courts follow them, and in tenancy law the 3rd Civil Chamber is the specialist chamber whose line the lower courts track. The realistic expectation is that enforcement courts and courts of the peace will treat a post-undertaking lease as presumptively fatal to the undertaking from now on. Parties should plan on that basis.

The foreign party's problem: signing documents you cannot read

Almost every dispute in this area begins with a signature, and foreign landlords and tenants sign these documents — leases, renewal contracts, undertakings, protocols — in Turkish, frequently without a reliable translation in front of them. After this ruling, the stakes of that habit are higher on both sides: a foreign landlord can void their own undertaking by signing what they believe is a routine renewal, and a foreign tenant may hold a document that ends the landlord's case without realising it. In our practice, the tenancy files that resolve cleanly are the ones where every signed document exists in both languages and the parties knew, at signature, which legal instrument they were executing. Because our office combines the attorney and sworn translator roles, the legal review and the certified translation of these documents are produced together — the same eye that assesses whether a document renews the tenancy also fixes its wording in both languages.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a tahliye taahhüdü (eviction undertaking)? A written promise by the tenant, under Article 352/1 of the Code of Obligations No. 6098, to vacate the property on a stated date. If the tenant stays past that date, the landlord can seek eviction through enforcement or the courts within one month, without proving any other ground.

What did the 2026 Yargıtay ruling decide? That a new lease signed after the undertaking renews the tenancy and renders the earlier undertaking void. The decision — 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2026/2877, K. 2026/2766, 5 May 2026 — was published in the Official Gazette on 18 July 2026.

Does a rent-increase protocol also cancel the undertaking? Not necessarily. The ruling concerns a new lease that renews the relationship. A protocol that expressly continues the existing contract and changes only the rent is a different instrument — but the boundary is decided on the document's wording, so drafting matters.

Is a verbal eviction undertaking valid? No. The undertaking must be in writing, given by the tenant or an authorised representative, and must state the vacating date.

Is an undertaking signed on the same day as the lease valid? The conditions restated in this ruling require the undertaking to be given after the property has been handed over, a reasonable time into the tenancy. Undertakings extracted at lease signature are the classic ground of challenge, and courts scrutinise them.

How long does a landlord have to enforce an undertaking? One month from the vacating date stated in it, by applying to the enforcement office or filing suit under Article 352/1. Missing the window forfeits the remedy.

Is this ruling binding on all Turkish courts? Not formally — it is a chamber decision, not a unification-of-jurisprudence ruling. But appeals in the interest of the law are published in the Official Gazette to guide the courts, and in tenancy matters lower courts follow the 3rd Civil Chamber's line closely.

Did the tenant in the case actually get to stay? No. Because the route was an appeal in the interest of the law, the quashing did not affect the concrete outcome — the eviction stood. The ruling changes how future cases are decided.

Does the ruling apply to homes as well as businesses? The case concerned commercial premises, but Article 352/1 governs residential and roofed commercial tenancies alike, and the reasoning — renewal voids the undertaking — is not tied to the property's use.

I'm a foreign landlord holding an undertaking. What should I do now? Do not sign a new lease with that tenant while you intend to rely on the undertaking; use a continuation protocol for rent adjustments; diarise the one-month enforcement window; and have every document reviewed and translated before signature.

I'm a tenant and I signed a new lease after giving an undertaking. Am I protected? On this ruling's reasoning, the earlier undertaking is void because the tenancy was renewed. If enforcement proceedings are brought on it, the later lease belongs at the centre of your defence — have the documents assessed promptly.

What if the undertaking was signed blank or under pressure? These are separate, heavily litigated defences, and they are fact-dependent — in the Manavgat case, a forensic report confirmed the signature and the challenge failed. Documents signed after the undertaking are typically the firmer ground, which is exactly why this ruling matters.