Is the tenant obligated to paint or decorate the walls?

Tenant Painting and Decorating | Law Offices in Izmir | Efes Law Office

Is a Tenant Obligated to Repaint the House Before Moving Out? | Tenant's Obligation to Paint and Decorate

In practice, lease agreements often contain clauses such as "the tenant shall return the property painted" or "the tenant is obligated to return the property in the same condition as it was received." However, such clauses are considered invalid because they contain provisions contrary to the Turkish Code of Obligations. The legislator has explicitly stated that the tenant cannot be held responsible for wear and tear resulting from ordinary use. An examination of legal regulations and Supreme Court decisions reveals that for a tenant to be obligated to repaint, damage to the walls beyond ordinary use must be established. The fact that the law excludes wear and tear resulting from "ordinary use" from the tenant's responsibility constitutes the fundamental criterion in this regard.

For example, fading paint or minor scratches after a few years of use are considered normal. If such wear and tear occurs despite the tenant's careful and appropriate use of the property as stipulated in the contract, it is not legally permissible to demand any repainting costs from the tenant. The Supreme Court, in its relevant rulings, explicitly states that such "low-level" wear and tear falls under the category of ordinary use.

Does a tenant have to repaint the house before moving out?

According to Article 334 of our Law of Obligations No. 6098, titled "Return of Leased Property,", “The tenant is obligated to return the leased property in the same condition as when it was received at the end of the lease agreement. However, the tenant is NOT responsible for wear and tear or damage to the leased property resulting from its use in accordance with the agreement.”

To illustrate with an example decision:;
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, case number: 2013/9132, decision number: 2014/2227 and 27.02.201The decision dated 4th contains the following statements in summary:;

“…Therefore, in the specific case, the defendant tenant is liable to the landlord only to the extent of damages resulting from the misuse of the leased property during the lease term. Consequently, in the present case where the allegation of misuse is made, the local court should first focus on this aspect and determine whether the damages identified in the leased property resulted from misuse. The evidence assessment report details the damages in the leased property one by one, and separates the damages resulting from misuse from those resulting from normal use. Indeed, this distinction has also been established by the expert report obtained as a result of the on-site inspection.”. Accordingly, damage to the ceiling due to dirt and paintwork was determined as normal use, while the cost of the broken glass was determined as misuse. In this case, since the tenant is not liable for damages arising from normal use under Article 266/2 of the Code of Obligations, and there is no contractual provision to the contrary, it is incorrect to rule in writing that the tenant is liable for damages arising from both normal and misuse.” It is stated.

What happens if a clause is included in the contract requiring the tenant to have the property painted when they vacate it?

If we look at the regulation:

Law No. 6098 Turkish Code of Obligations’According to Article 334 of the law, entitled "Return of Leased Property", “"Agreements in which the tenant undertakes in advance to pay compensation other than damages arising from misuse of the contract in the event of termination of the contract." INVALID.”

As can be understood from the relevant legal provision, the inclusion of the phrase "received painted - will be returned painted" in the lease agreement has no legal effect. In other words, the tenant is not obligated to paint or repaint the property. In other words, as in the first example above, the tenant is not required to return the property painted. It should not be overlooked that any deterioration in question must be due to normal use. For example, intentional scratching or drawing on the walls is an exception to this legal provision, and in such cases, the tenant is obligated to restore the property to its original condition upon delivery.

According to the Supreme Court's precedents, although the tenant is obligated to return the rented property in the same condition as when it was rented, the practice indicates that the tenant is not obligated to repaint the property if the paint is considered normal wear and tear and there is no evidence of misuse. Therefore, even if the contract stipulates an obligation to repaint the apartment, the tenant will not be held responsible if there is no misuse. Similarly, deductions from the security deposit are not possible. Refusal to return the deposit or any deductions can only be made if a lawsuit is filed and the matter is determined by a court decision.

It is also important to note that landlords or tenants cannot claim any compensation from tenants for the lack of painting upon handover, and as mentioned above, they cannot deduct anything from the security deposit without a court order. Therefore, individuals knowing their rights and acting consciously will prevent potential loss of rights.

Contact our expert team for consulting services. Contactpage.

Here are some other articles that might interest you:

Address: Nergis Neighborhood, Girne Boulevard No: 83, Floor 2, Apartment 2, Karşıyaka, İzmir

E-mail: info@efeshukuk.com

Phone: +90 534 415 52 56