Re-Renting After Necessity Eviction: Tenant Rights 2026

This guide sets out the legal consequences for landlords in Turkey who evict tenants based on personal necessity and then re-rent the property to a third party, the three-year prohibition that applies after such an eviction, the tenant's right to compensation under Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, and the steps a tenant should take to pursue a claim.

Under Turkish rental law, a landlord may bring an eviction action against a tenant on the ground of personal necessity, claiming that they or a close relative genuinely need to occupy the property. This is one of the most commonly invoked grounds for eviction under Turkish law and, when the underlying need is real, it is a legitimate mechanism for a landlord to recover their property. However, the same mechanism is also subject to abuse, and the law contains specific provisions designed to deter and compensate for it.

Where a landlord successfully obtains an eviction judgment on personal necessity grounds and then, without any genuine change in circumstances, re-rents the property to a third party within three years, this constitutes a legally defined wrong under Turkish law. The evicted tenant has a right to claim compensation, and the Turkish Court of Cassation has consistently upheld this right across a line of decisions. At Bayraktar Attorneys, we advise both landlords and tenants on all aspects of rental disputes in Turkey, including the structuring of necessity-based eviction claims and the pursuit and defence of compensation claims arising from the re-rental prohibition.

1. Legal Basis: Eviction Based on Personal Necessity Under Article 350

Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098) sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may bring an eviction action based on necessity. The provision recognizes two distinct grounds:

• Personal use by the landlord or a close relative: the landlord, their spouse, their descendants, their ascendants, or other close relatives recognized by law genuinely need to use the property for residential or workplace purposes.
• Reconstruction or major repair: the property must be demolished for rebuilding, or requires major repair or renovation that makes it impossible for the tenant to remain in occupation during the works.

In practice, the personal necessity ground is by far the more commonly invoked of the two. Before filing a lawsuit on this basis, the landlord must serve a proper formal notice of eviction on the tenant in accordance with the requirements of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Failure to observe the correct notice procedure can be a ground for the dismissal of the eviction action.

A landlord who files an eviction action based on personal necessity must demonstrate to the court that the need is genuine, current, and not artificially created for the purpose of recovering the property for other reasons. The court assesses the genuineness of the need on the basis of the evidence presented, and a landlord who cannot satisfy the court that the need is real will have the action dismissed.

2. The Three-Year Re-Rental Prohibition

Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations imposes a specific obligation on a landlord who has evicted a tenant on personal necessity grounds: for a period of three years from the date the property is vacated, the landlord is prohibited from renting the property to anyone other than the former tenant, unless a genuinely justified and unavoidable reason makes it impossible to use the property for the stated purpose.

The logic of this provision is straightforward. If the landlord's stated need was genuine, the landlord will use the property for that purpose throughout the relevant period. If the landlord re-rents the property to a new tenant shortly after the eviction, this constitutes compelling evidence that the stated need either never existed or no longer exists, and that the eviction was used as a mechanism to remove the existing tenant for other reasons, most commonly to rent the property at a higher rate or to a preferred new tenant.

The prohibition is not absolute. A landlord who is prevented from using the property for the stated purpose by circumstances that are genuinely beyond their control may have a defence to a compensation claim. The law recognizes that circumstances can change after a judgment is obtained. However, the burden of establishing that a valid justification exists lies on the landlord, and the bar is set by the courts at a level that prevents economic advantage or higher rental potential from qualifying as a valid reason.

3. The Tenant's Right to Compensation

Where a landlord violates the three-year re-rental prohibition without a valid justification, the evicted tenant has a right to claim compensation in damages under Article 352(2) of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This right arises independently of the original eviction proceedings. The tenant does not need to re-litigate the eviction itself; what they must establish in the compensation claim is the three elements set out below.

3.1. Elements of the Compensation Claim

To succeed in a compensation claim under Article 352, the tenant must establish:

• That the eviction was obtained on personal necessity grounds: this is generally established by reference to the original court judgment or the settlement reached in the original eviction proceedings.
• That the property was re-rented to a third party within three years of the vacation date: this must be proven by the tenant through documentary evidence.
• That no valid or compelling reason existed for the change in circumstances: the absence of a valid justification is part of the tenant's case; however, once re-rental is established, the landlord bears the burden of proving that a valid justification existed.

3.2. Calculation of Compensation

The compensation awarded in successful claims under this provision is designed to address the actual financial loss the tenant suffered as a result of the eviction. Turkish courts have assessed compensation on the basis of the following heads of loss:

• The difference between the rent the tenant was paying under the original lease and the higher rent they were required to pay for equivalent accommodation after the eviction, calculated over the relevant period
• Relocation and removal costs actually incurred as a result of the eviction
• Other documented financial losses causally linked to the eviction, such as the loss of a commercial opportunity in the case of a workplace lease
• In appropriate cases, additional damages for the inconvenience and disruption caused by having to vacate accommodation on the basis of a court order that was obtained without genuine necessity

The courts do not award compensation on a purely nominal basis. Where the tenant has suffered demonstrable financial loss, the award is calibrated to that loss. This is one reason why tenants who are considering a compensation claim should begin documenting their losses from the moment of eviction rather than waiting until proceedings are commenced.

4. The Court of Cassation's Approach

The Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargitay) has consistently upheld the tenant's right to compensation in cases where the re-rental prohibition has been violated. Two decisions in particular have been widely applied:

• Yargitay 6th Civil Chamber, 2013/1252 E., 2013/5893 K.: the Court held that re-renting a property to a third party shortly after obtaining an eviction judgment on personal necessity grounds constitutes compelling evidence of bad faith, and confirmed the tenant's entitlement to compensation. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the necessity ground is to address genuine need, not to provide a mechanism for removing tenants in order to secure higher rent from new occupants.
• Yargitay 3rd Civil Chamber, 2018/3254 E., 2018/7342 K.: the Court emphasized that a landlord who invokes personal necessity as the ground for eviction must genuinely intend to use the property for that purpose. The personal necessity ground may not be used as a legal device to evict a sitting tenant for commercial reasons while maintaining the appearance of legal compliance.

Across its decisions on this topic, the Court has applied a consistent analytical framework: where re-rental occurs within the three-year period, it creates a factual presumption of bad faith that the landlord must rebut with credible evidence of a genuine change in circumstances. A mere assertion that circumstances have changed is not sufficient; the landlord must produce evidence that corroborates the claimed justification.

5. What Constitutes a Valid Justification for the Landlord?

The three-year prohibition is not an absolute bar on any change of use. A landlord who is genuinely prevented from occupying or using the property for the stated purpose by circumstances beyond their control may have a valid defence to a compensation claim. The courts have recognized the following types of circumstance as capable of constituting a valid justification:

• A sudden and significant deterioration in the landlord's health that prevents them from occupying the property
• The death or serious disability of the relative for whose benefit the necessity was claimed
• A material and unforeseen change in the landlord's personal circumstances, such as a relocation imposed by employment, that makes the original stated use impossible
• The discovery of a structural or legal defect in the property that was not known at the time of the eviction and that makes occupation impossible

The courts have consistently held that purely economic motivations do not constitute a valid justification. A landlord who re-rents the property because they can obtain a higher rent from a new tenant, or because the market has changed, or because a more commercially attractive tenant has approached them, cannot rely on any of these circumstances as a defence. The necessity ground is a legal mechanism for addressing genuine personal need, and it cannot be converted into a commercial tool by invoking the protections available for genuinely compelling circumstances.

6. Gathering Evidence and the Steps a Tenant Should Take

Where a tenant has been evicted on personal necessity grounds and later discovers that the landlord has re-rented the property to a third party, the following steps should be taken promptly, both to preserve the evidence and to preserve the limitation period for the compensation claim.

6.1. Documenting the Re-Rental

The tenant must produce evidence establishing that the property has been re-rented to a third party within the three-year prohibition period. The following types of evidence are typically used for this purpose:

• Copies of, or details from, new lease agreements registered between the landlord and a new tenant
• Real estate listings showing the property advertised for rental after the eviction date
• Utility subscription records or address registrations showing a new occupant at the property
• Neighbor testimony or photographic evidence of third party occupation
• Land registry and address registration records, which can be accessed through formal requests

Evidence of re-rental should be gathered and preserved as soon as the tenant becomes aware of it, because the evidentiary record becomes harder to reconstruct as time passes and documents may be lost or altered.

6.2. The Limitation Period

A compensation claim under Article 352 must be filed within five years of the date on which the re-rental occurred or was discovered by the tenant. This five-year limitation period runs from the date the cause of action arose, meaning the date of the re-rental or the date the tenant became aware of it. Waiting until the limitation period approaches before consulting a lawyer significantly reduces the time available to prepare and file a well-supported claim, and any procedural complications may result in the claim being time-barred. We recommend that tenants seek legal advice as soon as they become aware that the property has been re-rented.

6.3. The Role of Legal Representation

Compensation claims under Article 352 involve issues of fact and law that require specific expertise in Turkish tenancy law and civil procedure. A lawyer can assess whether the factual circumstances support a viable claim, advise on the strength of the available evidence, prepare and file the claim in the competent court, and represent the tenant through the proceedings. Tenants who attempt to bring these claims without legal advice frequently encounter procedural difficulties that delay or compromise their cases.

7. Implications for Landlords

Landlords who are considering bringing an eviction action based on personal necessity should understand the full legal framework before proceeding. A landlord who obtains a necessity-based eviction judgment and then finds that they cannot or do not wish to use the property for the stated purpose is in a legally exposed position. If the property is re-rented within three years, a compensation claim is a foreseeable and legally well-supported consequence.

Landlords who find themselves in this position should consider the following:

• Where a genuine change in circumstances has arisen that prevents use of the property for the stated purpose, document that change thoroughly and contemporaneously.
• Before re-renting the property, obtain legal advice on whether the changed circumstances constitute a valid justification that would provide a defence to a compensation claim.
• Where re-rental cannot be avoided, consider whether an approach to the former tenant is possible, as offering the property back to the former tenant on reasonable terms may address the re-rental prohibition directly.
• Be aware that even where the former tenant has found alternative accommodation, the compensation claim remains available to them for the financial losses they suffered as a result of the eviction.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

8.1. My landlord evicted me based on personal necessity two years ago and has now re-rented the property. Do I have a claim?

Yes, provided the re-rental occurred within three years of the date you vacated the property. You would need to establish the fact of re-rental through documentary evidence and demonstrate that no valid justification existed for the landlord's failure to use the property for the stated purpose. The five-year limitation period runs from the date of re-rental or your discovery of it. Legal advice should be sought promptly to assess the strength of your specific case.

8.2. The landlord says they had a health problem that prevented them from using the property. Does this excuse the re-rental?

Genuine health reasons can constitute a valid justification, but the landlord must produce credible evidence of the health issue, such as contemporaneous medical records, rather than simply asserting it after the fact. A court will assess the credibility and timing of the claimed justification. A health issue that conveniently arises in the context of a compensation claim, without contemporaneous medical documentation, is unlikely to be treated as sufficient.

8.3. How is the compensation amount calculated?

Compensation is calculated on the basis of the actual financial loss the tenant suffered as a result of the eviction. The most common heads of loss are the difference between the original rent and the higher rent paid for alternative accommodation, relocation costs, and other documented losses. The courts do not award nominal damages; the award is calibrated to the loss actually proven. Maintaining records of your rental costs before and after the eviction, together with relocation and other expenses, is essential for quantifying the claim.

8.4. How long do I have to file a compensation claim?

The limitation period is five years from the date the re-rental occurred or from the date you became aware of it. While five years may seem long, building a well-supported claim takes time, and evidence is easier to gather while the re-rental is recent. We recommend seeking legal advice as soon as you become aware of the re-rental rather than waiting.

8.5. The landlord offered the property back to me before re-renting it to someone else. Does this affect my rights?

An offer to restore the property to the former tenant is legally significant. If the landlord genuinely offered the property back to you on comparable terms before re-renting it to a third party, and you declined the offer, this may reduce or eliminate your compensation claim, depending on the circumstances. If the offer was made on terms materially less favorable than your original lease, the legal position is more complex. The specific terms of any such offer should be reviewed by a lawyer.

8.6. As a landlord, I genuinely needed the property but my circumstances have now changed. What should I do before re-renting?

Before re-renting the property within the three-year prohibition period, you should obtain legal advice on whether your changed circumstances constitute a valid justification under Article 352. You should document the changed circumstances thoroughly with contemporaneous evidence. You should also consider offering the property back to the former tenant on comparable terms before approaching a new tenant, as this addresses the re-rental prohibition directly and may provide a defence to any subsequent compensation claim.

Conclusion

The personal necessity ground for eviction under Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is a legitimate legal mechanism, but it is accompanied by a defined and enforceable obligation: the landlord must not re-rent the property to a third party for three years following the eviction, unless a genuine and unavoidable change in circumstances makes the stated use impossible. Where this prohibition is violated, the evicted tenant has a well-established right to claim compensation, and the Turkish Court of Cassation has applied this right consistently across its decisions.

Both landlords and tenants benefit from understanding this framework before a necessity-based eviction proceeds. A landlord who invokes personal necessity without genuine need is taking on a legally quantifiable liability. A tenant who has been evicted on this ground and later discovers that the property has been re-rented should act promptly to preserve their evidence and their claim.