[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
\u0130zmir’in\u00a0Karaba\u011flar il\u00e7esindeki evini 2 y\u0131l \u00f6nce \u0130brahim \u00c7etin’e kiralayan ev sahibi K.K, ge\u00e7en y\u0131l 900 lira olan kiray\u0131 T\u00dcFE oran\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterip yakla\u015f\u0131k y\u00fczde 55,5 art\u0131rarak 1400 lira olarak belirledi\u011fini kirac\u0131s\u0131na iletti.<\/p>\n
Verilen bilgiye g\u00f6re, in\u015faat i\u015f\u00e7isi olan \u00c7etin, ba\u015fka bir ev bulamamas\u0131 nedeniyle kiray\u0131 1400 lira olarak 3 ay \u00f6dedi. \u00d6deme g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ya\u015fayan \u00c7etin, daha sonra kiras\u0131n\u0131 yasal olarak belirlenen \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r olan y\u00fczde 25’in \u00fczerinde art\u0131\u015fla 1250 lira olarak \u00f6demeye devam etti.<\/p>\n
Ev sahibi K.K, kira farklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi ve tahliye talebiyle 4. \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesine ba\u015fvurdu.<\/p>\n
Bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu kirac\u0131n\u0131n borcunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve yasal s\u0131n\u0131rdan fazla \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirleyen mahkeme, ev sahibinin tahliye talebini reddetti, 3 ayl\u0131k fazla kira i\u00e7in de “k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131” \u00f6demesine karar verdi.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131nda, “Takibe konu aylara ili\u015fkin as\u0131l alacak yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde alacakl\u0131 hesab\u0131na \u00f6dendi\u011finden tahliye talebinin reddine karar verilmesi, gerekli \u015fartlar olu\u015ftu\u011fundan takibe konu as\u0131l alaca\u011f\u0131n y\u00fczde 20’si oran\u0131ndaki k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131dan al\u0131n\u0131p daval\u0131ya verilmesine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015ftir.” ifadelerine yer verdi.<\/p>\n
Kirac\u0131 \u0130brahim \u00c7etin’in avukat\u0131 Mustafa Tun\u00e7, AA muhabirine, yasa gere\u011fi kiraya en fazla y\u00fczde 25 zam yap\u0131labilece\u011fini, bu nedenle ev sahibinin icra takibine itiraz ettiklerini s\u00f6yledi.<\/p>\n
Ev sahibinin, yapt\u0131klar\u0131 itiraz\u0131n iptali ve kirac\u0131n\u0131n tahliye edilmesi talebiyle dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dile getiren Tun\u00e7, \u015f\u00f6yle konu\u015ftu:<\/p>\n
“Davan\u0131n devam\u0131nda bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131nd\u0131. Rapor neticesinde y\u00fczde 25 zamm\u0131n uygun oldu\u011fu, kanunun emri h\u00fckm\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle hem icra takibine kar\u015f\u0131 itiraz iptali davas\u0131n\u0131 reddettiler hem de kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131 ‘k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131na’ h\u00fckmettiler. K\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131, icra takiplerinde alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olarak icra ba\u015flatmalar\u0131ndan verilen bir tazminat. Burada da m\u00fclk sahibinin, k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli bir \u015fekilde icra takibi ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in takibe konu alaca\u011f\u0131n y\u00fczde 20’si oran\u0131nda k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131 \u00f6demesine h\u00fckmedildi.”<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n