Eviction Commitment

How to evict a tenant with an eviction undertaking?

The relationship between landlord and tenant is one of the areas where disputes most frequently arise in practice. Especially when a tenant refuses to vacate the property, landlords often "How can I evict a tenant?" At this point, one of the most commonly used legal methods an eviction undertaking.

An eviction undertaking is a written statement by a tenant undertaking to vacate the rented property on a specific date. While seemingly simple, it is a powerful legal tool with serious consequences for both landlords and tenants in practice. When properly drafted, it allows the landlord to quickly evict the tenant; however, an improperly drafted undertaking can be considered completely invalid and have to restart the process.

Therefore, this is not just a matter of "tenant eviction methods," but also a mechanism that needs to be carefully considered in terms of legal validity, deadlines, and procedural rules

What is an Eviction Undertaking?

An eviction undertaking is a unilateral declaration of intent in which the tenant agrees in writing to vacate the rented property on a specific date. Thanks to this undertaking, the landlord can directly initiate eviction proceedings or legal action if the tenant fails to vacate on the specified date.

The critical point here is this:
the eviction undertaking is not an undertaking independent of the lease agreement; rather, it arises within the lease relationship and produces consequences dependent on it. In other words, this document is not just an ordinary piece of writing, but a legal basis that can directly lead to eviction.

Why is an Eviction Undertaking Important?

Under normal circumstances, evicting a tenant:

• It may take a long time
• This may require a legal process
• This can lead to a significant waste of time.

However, only if there is a valid eviction undertaking:

• The landlord can act much faster
• can initiate direct enforcement proceedings,
• They may not have to get involved in lengthy eviction proceedings.

In this respect, an eviction undertaking is considered one of the most practical and effective eviction methods for the landlord

Legal Basis

Eviction undertakings are explicitly regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations. This regulation grants the landlord the right to evict a tenant if the tenant undertakes in writing to vacate the property on a specific date.

Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 352/1

Within the framework of this provision:

• If the tenant undertakes in writing to vacate the rented property on a specific date,
• If the property is not vacated by this date,
• The landlord can request eviction by applying within a specified period.

However, there is a very important detail to note here:
While the law recognizes this right, to strict validity conditions . In other words, not every written document constitutes an eviction undertaking.

The Logic Behind Eviction with a Commitment to Vacate

The basic logic of this system is quite clear:

1. The tenant agrees in writing to vacate on a specific date.
2. If the property is not vacated by this date,
3. The landlord can initiate eviction proceedings based on this document.

At this point, a situation different from classic rental disputes arises. This is because there is a promise made by the tenant of their own free will. This significantly speeds up the process in favor of the landlord.

The Most Common Situation in Practice

In real life, an eviction commitment typically occurs in the following way:

• When renting out a property, the landlord obtains an undertaking from the tenant to vacate the premises "to avoid problems in the future.".
• Tenants often sign this document without fully understanding its consequences.
• When the eviction time comes, he objects to the document.

This is where the following question becomes critical:
The law requires very clear conditions for an eviction undertaking to be valid. If even one of these conditions is missing, the document may become completely null and void, and the landlord may lose the right to evict.

Key Points to Know at First Glance

We will examine the details in more detail in the next section; however, it is necessary to outline the general framework now:

• The commitment must be in writing.
• The evacuation date must be clear and specific.
• The commitment must have been given by the tenant of their own free will.
• usually needs to be drawn up after

These conditions are the fundamental building blocks for an eviction undertaking to be considered "valid." The biggest mistake made in practice is ignoring these conditions

How to evict a tenant with an eviction undertaking? 

In the first part, we explained what an eviction undertaking is and why it is such a powerful legal tool. However, the crucial point in practice is this:
not every eviction undertaking is valid.

In fact, to be frank, a significant portion of eviction undertakings in practice are deemed invalid due to formal errors or defects in intent. This leads to serious loss of rights for the landlord.

Therefore, in this section, the validity conditions and the most common mistakes in a clear and practical manner.

Conditions for the Validity of the Eviction Undertaking

For an eviction undertaking to be legally binding, it must meet certain fundamental conditions. These conditions stem from both the law and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

1. Written Form Requirement

The undertaking to vacate must in writing .
Verbal statements such as "I will leave" have no legal value.

Written form:

• It can be a simple written document
• Notarization is not required (but it provides an advantage in terms of proof)

However, the important thing here is that
the document must be signed by the tenant.

No signature:

• The document is invalid
• The request for release is denied

A common mistake in practice:

• A printed document is prepared, but the tenant does not sign it
• or the signature does not belong to the tenant

In this case, the document has no legal effect.

2. The Evacuation Date Must Be Clear and Specific

One of the most critical elements of the evacuation commitment is the deadline.

In the document:

• The day/month/year must be clearly stated

For example:

• “I’ll be released in 1 year” → invalid
• “I will leave when necessary” → invalid
• “I will be released on 01.07.2026” → valid

If the date is unclear:

• enforcement proceedings cannot be initiated
• Even if a lawsuit is filed, it may be dismissed

3. It Must Have Been Given by the Tenant's Free Will

For the eviction undertaking to be considered valid, the tenant must:

• without being under pressure,
• without difficulty
• He/She must sign of his/her own free will.

4. The condition is that it must have been drawn up after the lease agreement

This is one of the most critical points, and also one where most mistakes are made.

Eviction undertaking:
This should generally be given after the lease agreement is signed.

If:

• if signed at the same time as the lease agreement
• even if it's included in the contract

often considered invalid in this case.

Because the assumption here is that
the tenant was forced to sign this document in order to rent the property.

The Supreme Court is also quite strict on this matter.

5. The Commitment Must Be Given Personally by the Tenant

Eviction commitment:

• must be signed by the tenant
• Commitments given by third parties are not valid

If there is more than one tenant in the property,
all of them must sign.

Otherwise:

• It only produces results for the person who signs it
• The evacuation process becomes complicated

Consequences of an Invalid Eviction Undertaking

If the eviction undertaking is invalid:

• enforcement proceedings are cancelled
• The case is dismissed
• The tenant remains in the property

This is also the landlord's perspective:

• waste of time
• material loss
• process lengthening

It means...

How to evict a tenant with an eviction undertaking? 

In the first two sections, we clearly defined what an eviction undertaking is and what conditions it must meet to be valid. Now we come to the most critical stage:
If there is a valid eviction undertaking, how is a tenant actually evicted?

The most common misunderstanding in practice is this:
many people who have eviction orders lose their rights because they mishandle the process. However, this process follows specific steps and timeframes, and if a deadline is missed, the right can be completely lost.

The Basic Logic of the Evacuation Process

The eviction process based on an eviction commitment works as follows:

1. The tenant undertakes in writing to vacate on a specific date
2. The property will not be vacated when this date arrives
3. The landlord applies within the legal timeframe
4. Eviction is carried out through enforcement proceedings or legal action

There are two critical factors at this point:

• application period
• choosing the right course of action (enforcement or litigation)

1. The Most Critical Rule: A One-Month Period

The most crucial point in the evacuation commitment is this:

The landlord must take action within one month of the eviction date

If this deadline is missed:

• The eviction undertaking does not lose its validity, however
• The right to request eviction based on that lapses

In practice, this means
the document exists, but it becomes unusable.

Example:

• Release date: July 1
• Application deadline: August 1st

If the transaction is made after this date:

• enforcement proceedings can be cancelled
• The case may be dismissed

Therefore, the timing issue absolutely cannot tolerate mistakes.

2. Eviction through Enforcement Proceedings 

The most practical and fastest method based on an eviction commitment is through enforcement proceedings.

How does the process work?

1. The landlord applies to the enforcement office
2. They initiate proceedings based on the eviction undertaking
3. An eviction notice is sent to the tenant
4. The tenant can object within a specified period

If the tenant does not object

• The process moves quickly
• The eviction order is implemented
• tenant forcibly evicted

If the tenant objects

In this case, the process changes:

• The landlord applies to the enforcement court
• requests the lifting of the objection
• The court examines the validity of the undertaking

If the commitment is valid:
an eviction order will be issued.

3. Eviction through Legal Action

The second option is to file a lawsuit directly.

This route usually:

• preferred over execution or
• It intervenes if problems arise during the enforcement process

How does the process work?

1. The landlord files a lawsuit in the civil court
2. Provides eviction undertaking
3. The court examines the validity
4. The court issues an eviction order

This road:

• It takes longer than enforcement
• But it can be safer in some situations

4. Enforcement Proceedings or Litigation?

This question is asked very often, and the clear answer is:

If you want speed → execution

If there is a risk → lawsuit

Executive:

• faster
• more practical
• But it could be delayed if there are objections

Case:

• slower
• but progresses more steadily

In practice, execution is usually preferred.

5. Implementation Flow During the Evacuation Process

To summarize the process simply:

• Evacuation date arrives
• The tenant won't leave
• Applications must be submitted within 1 month
• Enforcement proceedings are initiated
• If the tenant objects, the case goes to court
• An eviction order is issued
• Eviction is carried out through enforcement proceedings

While the eviction undertaking theoretically appears to be a clear and unambiguous regulation, in practice, the most decisive factor is the approach of the Supreme Court. This is because the general expressions in the law are shaped by the Supreme Court's precedents in specific disputes, and their boundaries are determined by these decisions.

Therefore, in the process of evicting a tenant with a commitment to vacate, relying solely on the law is insufficient; it is also necessary to know in which cases the Supreme Court deems the commitment valid and in which cases it deems it invalid.

The Supreme Court's Approach to the Commitment to Release

While the Supreme Court recognizes eviction undertakings as a powerful tool in favor of the landlord, it tends to interpret this institution narrowly, taking into account the principle of tenant protection. In other words, for an eviction undertaking to be considered valid, it requires that all conditions be fully met.

The fundamental approach, particularly prominent in Supreme Court rulings, is this:
Since the tenant is the party in need of housing and is often in a weaker position, the possibility that the eviction undertaking was given under duress should always be considered.

Therefore, the Supreme Court attaches great importance to formal requirements and freedom of will.

Commitments Made on the Same Date as the Lease Agreement

One of the clearest and most established views in the Supreme Court's practice is this:
If the eviction undertaking is drawn up on the same date as the lease agreement, it is considered invalid in most cases.

The fundamental reasoning behind this is the assumption that the tenant may have been forced to sign this document in order to rent the property. According to the Supreme Court, in this case, it is not possible to speak of the tenant's genuine and free will.

Therefore, in practice:

• lease agreement date
• evacuation commitment date

If they are the same, this creates a serious risk of invalidation.

Blank-Dated or Subsequently Filled-In Commitments

Another situation frequently encountered by the Supreme Court is when a tenant is made to sign an eviction undertaking with a blank date, and that date is later filled in by the landlord.

In such cases, the Supreme Court:

• the tenant's free will may have been impaired,
• the credibility of the document has been compromised

By accepting, they often render the commitment invalid.

In particular, if the tenant claims that the date was added later and can support this claim, the eviction request may be rejected.

The Supreme Court's Approach to Written Forms and Signatures

According to the Supreme Court, the most fundamental element for the validity of an eviction undertaking is that the document must be in writing and signed by the tenant.

Your signature:

• not belonging to the tenant,
• imitation,
• missing

In these cases, the document is considered completely invalid.

Furthermore, in cases with multiple tenants, the eviction process becomes problematic if not all tenants have signed the agreement. The Supreme Court acknowledges that in such cases, the undertaking is not binding on all tenants.

Uncertainty Regarding the Evacuation Date

Another point frequently emphasized in Supreme Court rulings is that the eviction date must be clear and specific. Undertakings containing vague or ambiguous statements are not considered valid.

For example:

• "I will evacuate if necessary"
• "I will leave at a suitable time."

Statements such as these are not considered sufficient grounds for release. The Supreme Court regards such statements as general expressions that do not have legal consequences.

Rights of the Parties: From the Landlord's Perspective

An eviction undertaking provides significant rights for the landlord. If a valid undertaking exists, the landlord:

• You can request the eviction of the tenant by applying within 1 month of the eviction date
• You can initiate a swift eviction process through enforcement proceedings
• If the tenant objects, the court can be instructed to evict them

At this point, the landlord's most important right is to be able to reclaim the property based on the commitment made by the tenant of their own free will.

However, this right is not absolute. If the conditions are not met or the deadlines are missed, the landlord cannot benefit from this right.

Rights of the Parties: From the Tenant's Perspective

From the tenant's perspective, however, the eviction undertaking is not binding in all cases. Tenants also have important legal rights.

Tenant:

• They can claim that the commitment was obtained under duress
• You can argue that the document was drawn up on the same date as the lease agreement
• One can claim that history was filled in later
• He can claim that the signature is not his
• You may argue that the commitment does not meet the validity requirements

Such objections are considered particularly during the enforcement process or litigation phase and in many cases may lead to the rejection of the eviction request.

Establishing Balance

The most important element that stands out in the Supreme Court's approach is the attempt to strike a balance between the parties. While the landlord is given the opportunity for swift eviction, strict conditions are also stipulated to protect the tenant.

Therefore, the eviction commitment:

• not an unlimited right entirely in favor of the landlord,
• Nor is it a document that can be easily discarded by the tenant

should be evaluated as such.

Final Evaluation

In practice, the majority of disputes regarding eviction undertakings focus on the validity of the document. An examination of Supreme Court rulings clearly shows that:

• Non-compliance with formatting requirements
• Having impaired willpower
• The historical element is unclear

Undertakings are generally considered invalid.

Therefore, an eviction undertaking should not be treated merely as a formality, but as a document with serious legal consequences, and utmost care should be taken when drafting it.

Clearly Specifying the Property Being Rented

For an eviction undertaking to be considered valid, the property to be vacated must be clearly and unambiguously identified. This is because the eviction undertaking directly affects a specific leased property. If it is unclear which property is to be vacated, the enforceability of the document becomes seriously questionable.

Therefore, in practice:

•⁠  property address,

•⁠  independent section information,

•⁠  Apartment number,

•⁠  Property deed information if possible

It must be written clearly.

Using vague language, especially in cases involving multiple properties, can lead to the cancellation of the eviction process in the future. In Supreme Court practice, the identifiability of the leased property is considered an important condition for validity.

Authorized Enforcement Office in Enforcement Proceedings Based on Eviction Undertaking

In enforcement proceedings initiated based on an eviction undertaking, the competent enforcement office is generally the one located where the rented property is situated. However, it is also possible to initiate proceedings at the enforcement office in the debtor's place of residence.

In practice, the most preferred method is to initiate the process on-site. This is because eviction proceedings are carried out physically at the property's location, making the process easier from a practical standpoint.

Errors regarding jurisdiction can sometimes lead to delays in the proceedings or objections to jurisdiction. Therefore, it is important to correctly determine the competent enforcement office before initiating the eviction process.

The competent and authorized court in an eviction case based on an eviction undertaking

The competent court for lawsuits filed based on eviction undertakings is the Civil Court of Peace. Eviction disputes arising from lease agreements fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts of Peace by law.

Regarding the competent court, in general:

•⁠  the court of the place where the leased property is located,

•⁠  court of the defendant's place of residence

is considered authorised.

In practice, the most frequently preferred court is the civil court of first instance in the location of the property. This is because the dispute directly concerns the leased property.

Procedural errors regarding jurisdiction or authority can prolong a case and lead to significant time loss.

Differences Between Eviction Through Enforcement Proceedings and Eviction Through Litigation

Eviction of a tenant based on an eviction undertaking is possible through both enforcement proceedings and legal action. However, there are significant differences between these two methods in terms of process, speed, and implementation.

Eviction through enforcement proceedings is a faster method in practice. The process can be completed quickly, especially if the tenant does not object. Therefore, landlords who have a valid eviction undertaking often resort to enforcement proceedings first.

In contrast, eviction through legal action can take longer. However, in some cases:

•⁠  denial of signature,

•⁠  the validity of the commitment is debatable,

•⁠  technical discrepancies

In that case, pursuing legal action may become a safer option.

Therefore, the choice of which course of action to take should be evaluated based on the specific characteristics of the case. While enforcement proceedings may seem faster in practice, they are not considered the sole and absolute solution in all cases.