Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations allows a lease agreement to be terminated by way of extraordinary termination where the continuation of the lease relationship has become so burdensome for one of the parties that it can no longer reasonably be expected under the principle of good faith. In practice, this situation is often described as the lease relationship having become “intolerable.” Although this issue has recently been discussed in the public sphere as if it were a newly introduced legal mechanism, Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations has in fact long been in force and constitutes a well-established provision of considerable importance for both tenants and landlords. By virtue of this provision, either party may seek termination of the agreement by arguing that, due to significant reasons that have arisen, it can no longer objectively be expected to endure the lease relationship.
This provision, which is of particular significance for residential leases and roofed workplace leases, has regained prominence especially in recent years due to increasing economic volatility, developments eliminating the intended purpose of use, a severe breakdown in the relationship between the parties, and circumstances substantially depriving the leased premises of their expected utility. Indeed, the decision of the Court of Cassation published in the Official Gazette dated 12 March 2026, numbered 2025/3126 E. and 2025/4810 K., demonstrates that Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations does not create a new right; rather, it reiterates the scope of a long-existing termination mechanism. Whether the lease relationship has truly become intolerable must be assessed carefully on the basis of the specific facts of each case. For this reason, obtaining legal support from a lawyer experienced in lease law at the outset of the process is essential, particularly in terms of eviction, termination, compensation, and litigation strategy, and may help prevent serious loss of rights. As Bektaş Law Office, we conduct comprehensive litigation processes to protect the rights of our landlord clients through our team specialized in lease law. Please contact our office for further information.
Criteria for the Lease Relationship Becoming Intolerable
Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations grants each party the right to terminate the lease agreement at any time, provided that the statutory notice period for termination is observed, where significant reasons have arisen that render continuation of the lease relationship intolerable for that party. The law also expressly provides that the financial consequences of such extraordinary termination shall be determined by the judge in light of the circumstances of the case. In this respect, Article 331 is not an automatic mechanism that extinguishes the lease agreement by itself, but rather an exceptional termination remedy that becomes available only where certain conditions are met and remains subject to judicial review.
What must be particularly emphasized here is that the concept of the lease relationship becoming “intolerable” cannot be invoked in every instance of discomfort, every economic hardship, or every form of dissatisfaction. The law does not define the concept of a “significant reason”; instead, it leaves the assessment to the particular circumstances of the case and the principle of good faith. Accordingly, whether the lease relationship has truly become intolerable must be evaluated not through abstract or general statements, but by considering the gravity and continuity of the event, its impact on the parties, and whether continuation of the agreement can still objectively be expected. In other words, it is not ordinary disputes, but extraordinary circumstances that render continuation of the agreement unbearable within the framework of good faith that are relevant under Article 331.
In order for a significant reason to be recognized, it is generally expected that such reason could not have been foreseen by the parties at the time the agreement was concluded. In legal doctrine and practice, war, serious economic crises, extraordinary social developments, or severe external events that effectively render the intended use of the leased premises meaningless are cited as examples in this context. However, the scope of application of Article 331 is not limited solely to large-scale social events. Other significant reasons that do not have a social dimension but nonetheless make the specific lease relationship genuinely unsustainable for a party may also fall within the ambit of this provision. Therefore, when assessing intolerability, the focus must not be on formulaic assumptions but rather on the unique nature of the specific case.
That said, the scope of Article 331 is not confined to social developments alone; conduct such as disturbance, discomfort, instability, threats, insults, violence, or a lifestyle that may be described as immoral, created by the tenant, may likewise constitute grounds for termination of the lease agreement on the basis that the relationship has become intolerable.
A termination based on Article 331 fundamentally requires three elements: the existence of a valid lease agreement, the presence of significant reasons rendering continuation of the lease relationship intolerable, and the issuance of a termination notice in compliance with the applicable requirements. In particular, for residential leases and roofed workplace leases, the validity of the termination notice is subject to the written form requirement. Therefore, in practice, it is not sufficient merely for a justified reason to exist; that reason must also be asserted in due form. Otherwise, even where a truly significant reason exists, the termination process may become disputable from a procedural standpoint.
Another important point is that delayed or inconsistent reliance on Article 331 may create legal risk. In legal doctrine and practice, it is accepted that remaining silent for a prolonged period despite the existence of a circumstance allegedly rendering continuation of the agreement intolerable may be interpreted against the party under the principle of good faith. This is because, where a situation is genuinely claimed to be intolerable, the affected party is expected to act within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, where Article 331 is to be relied upon, careful planning is required both in determining whether the facts legally qualify as a “significant reason” and in ensuring the correct timing and form of the notice. One of the most common mistakes in lease law disputes is to rely on a justified ground while neglecting the procedural aspects.
Scope of Application of the Rule on the Lease Relationship Becoming Intolerable in Residential and Workplace Leases
Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is a general provision regulating the termination of a lease agreement by extraordinary termination where significant reasons arise that render continuation of the lease relationship intolerable for one of the parties. The wording of the provision does not distinguish between residential leases, roofed workplace leases, or any other type of lease. Accordingly, from the wording of the article, it is apparent that Article 331 focuses not on the nature of the lease agreement itself, but on whether continuation of the lease relationship has objectively become unbearable for the relevant party.
Indeed, this issue was clearly addressed in the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2025/3126 E. and 2025/4810 K., published in the Official Gazette dated 12 March 2026. In the case at hand, the first instance court held that extraordinary termination under Article 331 could not be applied on the grounds that the leased premises were subject to the rules governing residential and roofed workplace leases. However, the Court of Cassation did not consider this approach correct. In the reasoning of its decision, the Court expressly stated that the right of termination regulated under Article 331 is of a general nature and may be exercised in all types of lease relationships, including residential and roofed workplace leases. The reason why the first instance court rendered an incorrect judgment was that, under the former Turkish Code of Obligations, the relevant provision had a more limited field of application. However, under the new Turkish Code of Obligations, this framework was changed, and the relevant rule became applicable to workplace leases as well.
From this perspective, the decision in question does not create new law with respect to Article 331, but rather reiterates an already existing statutory framework. Indeed, the official legislative justification of the article states that the provision corresponds to Article 264 of the repealed Code of Obligations No. 818 and introduces a general rule applicable to all lease agreements regardless of the nature of the leased property. Therefore, termination on the ground that the lease relationship has become intolerable is neither an institution unique to residential leases nor one confined solely to workplace leases; what matters is the existence of a significant reason in the specific case and whether such reason has rendered continuation of the lease relationship unsustainable.
That being said, the reason for the hesitation that once arose in practice, particularly with respect to roofed workplace leases, was not the scope of the law itself, but the fact that the effectiveness of certain lease provisions had temporarily been postponed for certain categories of tenants. As a matter of fact, where the tenant in a workplace lease was a person deemed a merchant under the Turkish Commercial Code or a legal entity governed by private or public law, the application of Article 331 was deferred for eight years from 1 July 2012. Following the expiry of that deferment period, the provision became effectively applicable to such relationships as of 1 July 2020. Accordingly, as of today, it is legally possible for Article 331 to be invoked in both residential and roofed workplace leases.
It must be emphasized that the fact Article 331 may be applied in residential and workplace leases does not mean that every dispute will automatically lead to termination. In the Court of Cassation’s decision dated 12 March 2026, the Court did not directly order eviction; it merely held that the categorical approach of the first instance court—namely, that “this provision cannot be applied at all”—was incorrect. In other words, regardless of whether the lease concerns a residence or a workplace, the court must first accept that Article 331 is applicable and then separately examine whether a significant reason truly exists in the specific case.
Recent disputes in both residential and commercial leasing demonstrate that parties often proceed on the basis of an incorrect legal ground. In some cases, eviction based on need may be the appropriate route; in others, default may be the correct ground; and in yet others, extraordinary termination based on a significant reason under Article 331 may be the proper course of action. Misidentifying this distinction may lead to dismissal of the case or significant loss of time. For this reason, the legal basis upon which a lease agreement is to be terminated must be determined carefully in light of the specific facts of the case. Bektaş Law Office provides strategic legal support to its clients in identifying the appropriate legal route in residential and workplace lease disputes.
The Court of Cassation Decision Dated 12 March 2026 (2025/3126 E., 2025/4810 K.) and Its Importance
The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 14 October 2025 and numbered 2025/3126 E. and 2025/4810 K., published in the Official Gazette on 12 March 2026, has once again brought the scope of application of Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations to the forefront of lease law. The significance of this decision lies in the fact that it provides a strong answer to the question of whether the extraordinary termination mechanism for significant reasons under Article 331 constitutes a truly new legal remedy. Although the decision has been presented in the media as a “new development favorable to landlords,” it does not in fact create a new right; rather, it confirms the scope of a provision that has long been in force and embedded in the Turkish legal system.
In the case underlying the decision, the claimant landlord asserted that the parties had entered into a lease agreement commencing on 25 April 2022 and lasting for three years, that the agreement had been terminated by notarial notice dated 6 May 2023 pursuant to Article 331 on the basis of an unforeseeable force majeure event, and that the tenant had been notified that the leased premises should be vacated at the end of the three-month period. Since the premises were allegedly not vacated despite this notice, eviction was sought. The first instance court, however, held that the leased premises were subject to the rules governing residential and roofed workplace leases and therefore could not be terminated extraordinarily under Article 331; it instead assessed the case במסגרת eviction due to need and dismissed the action on the grounds that the lawsuit had been filed before the expiry of the relevant period.
It is precisely at this point that the reasoning of the Court of Cassation becomes significant. The Ministry of Justice, finding the first instance court’s approach contrary to law, applied for review in the interest of law, and the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly stated that the right of extraordinary termination regulated under Article 331 may be exercised in all types of lease relationships, including residential and roofed workplace leases, regardless of whether the lease agreement is for a fixed or indefinite term. The Court further emphasized that, because a lease agreement is a continuing-performance contract, where a condition of “intolerability” arises for one of the parties, that party cannot always be expected to remain bound by the agreement.
In conclusion, the principal message of this decision is clear: Article 331 is not a new provision; it is an extraordinary termination rule that has long been in force, may be invoked by both tenants and landlords, and must nevertheless be applied only on an exceptional basis. The decision published on 12 March 2026 merely clarifies, once again and in express terms, that this provision may also be applied in residential and roofed workplace leases. For this reason, it is of critical importance to correctly determine the legal basis for eviction or termination in each specific case. In some files, eviction due to need may be the correct basis; in others, default; and in still others, termination for significant reasons under Article 331. A lawsuit filed on the basis of the wrong ground may result in serious loss of time and rights even where the underlying claim is substantively justified. Bektaş Law Office provides comprehensive support to its clients in disputes concerning termination of lease relationships by identifying the legal route most suitable to the facts of the case and establishing an effective litigation strategy.
The Misperception That the Decision Created a New Legal Remedy
Following the publication in the Official Gazette on 12 March 2026 of the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a perception emerged among the public—and particularly in practice-oriented commentary—that Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations constitutes some newly discovered ground for eviction or termination. Technically speaking, however, this perception is inaccurate. Article 331 has long been in force and clearly provides that where significant reasons arise rendering continuation of the lease relationship intolerable for one of the parties, the agreement may be terminated at any time, provided that the statutory notice period is observed. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 was adopted on 11 January 2011 and entered into force on 1 July 2012. Accordingly, the termination mechanism currently being discussed is not new; it is a long-existing rule of the Turkish legal system that has simply become more visible again through a recent Court of Cassation decision.
Indeed, the legislator did not design Article 331 as an entirely new and independent institution, but rather continued the earlier understanding of “termination for significant reasons” from the former Code of Obligations within the systematic structure of the new law. Article 264 of the repealed Code of Obligations No. 818 had likewise accepted that where reasons arose making performance of the contract intolerable for one of the parties, the lease relationship could be brought to an end before its contractual expiry, provided that the statutory time periods were observed. Therefore, the historical roots of Article 331 extend back to the former era of Turkish obligations law. What has changed today is not the existence of the institution itself, but the fact that it has once again become the subject of more intense practical discussion.
The decision dated 12 March 2026 performs precisely this clarifying function. The Court of Cassation did not find the first instance court’s view—that Article 331 cannot be applied to residential and roofed workplace leases—to be correct. On the contrary, it expressly held that the right of termination in question is of a general nature and may be exercised in all lease relationships, including residential and roofed workplace leases. This finding does not create new law, but rather confirms the scope of the existing statutory provision. Put differently, the Court of Cassation did not “create a new ground for eviction”; it merely demonstrated that the already existing Article 331 cannot be interpreted in an unduly narrow or erroneous manner.
In conclusion, the Court of Cassation decision dated 12 March 2026 did not, contrary to certain public claims, place a brand-new termination tool in the hands of landlords or tenants. The true significance of the decision lies in the fact that it rendered the already existing scope of Article 331 more visible, expressly confirmed its applicability to residential and roofed workplace leases, and promoted interpretative consistency among lower courts. Accordingly, in any concrete lease dispute, the real question should not be whether “this decision is new,” but rather whether “my case genuinely satisfies the conditions of significant reason and intolerability within the meaning of Article 331.” It is at precisely this stage that the file must be assessed carefully from the outset in order to avoid proceeding on the basis of an incorrect legal ground. Bektaş Law Office provides comprehensive support to its clients in this regard by ensuring that disputes concerning the termination of leased real property are placed on the correct legal foundation and pursued through an accurate litigation strategy.
Assessment and Conclusion
Article 331 of the Turkish Code of Obligations is an exceptional provision that allows a lease relationship to be terminated by extraordinary termination where significant reasons arise that make continuation of the lease agreement objectively no longer expectable for one of the parties under the principle of good faith. In this respect, Article 331 is neither a general exit mechanism available in every lease dispute nor a narrowly tailored rule applicable only to certain categories of leases. The decisive issue is whether, in the specific case, the lease relationship has genuinely become intolerable, whether this circumstance qualifies as a significant reason, and whether the termination process has been carried out in compliance with the applicable legal procedure. Particularly in relation to residential and roofed workplace leases, the increase in disputes in recent years has made the practical importance of this provision even more visible.
The Court of Cassation decision published in the Official Gazette on 12 March 2026 likewise demonstrates that Article 331 does not introduce a new legal possibility; rather, it reaffirms the scope and applicability of a provision that has long existed within the Turkish legal system. For this reason, relying solely on current headlines or superficial public commentary in the process of terminating a lease agreement may often be misleading. In every dispute, different legal routes—such as eviction due to need, default, eviction commitment, or termination for significant reasons under Article 331—must be considered separately. Steps taken on the basis of an incorrect legal ground may lead not only to loss of time but also to serious loss of rights.
Careful assessment of the specific facts is of great importance in matters such as the lease relationship becoming intolerable, the eviction process, termination notices, compensation risks, and litigation strategy. Bektaş Law Office provides comprehensive legal support to its clients in disputes concerning residential and workplace leases through its knowledge and experience in lease law. Attorney Bahadır Bektaş, a lease law practitioner, and his team of specialists offer professional legal consultancy in relation to identifying the appropriate legal route for the termination of a lease relationship, identifying risks in advance, and establishing an effective litigation strategy. To learn the legal solution best suited to the characteristics of your lease dispute and to manage the process correctly, you may contact Bektaş Law Office.
