Is the tenant obligated to paint or decorate the walls?

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

Kiracı, Evden Çıkarken Evi Boyatmak Zorunda mı? | Kiracı’nın Boya Badana Yapma Yükümlülüğü

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.

Örneğin, birkaç yıllık kullanım sonucunda boyanın solması veya hafif çiziklerin oluşması normal kabul edilmektedir. Kiracının, evi sözleşmeye uygun ve özenli kullanmasına rağmen bu tarz bir yıpranma oluşması durumunda, herhangi bir boya masrafının kiracıdan talep edilmesi hukuka uygun değildir. Yargıtay’da söz konusu kararlarında, bu tür “düşük seviyeli” yıpranmaların olağan kullanım kategorisinde sayılacağını açıkça belirtir.

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.

Yargıtay’ın emsal nitelikli kararlarına bakıldığında kiracı her ne kadar kiralananı kiraladığı şekliyle iade etme yükümlülüğü altındaysa da uygulamalar evin boyasının olağan eskime kapsamında olduğu ve hor kullanma halinin vuku bulmadığı hallerde kiracının badana yapma yükümlülüğünün olmadığı yönündedir. Böylece sözleşmelerde dairenin yeniden boyasını yapma borcu kararlaştırılmış olsa bile, kiracı tarafından kötü kullanma söz konusu değilse kiracı bu borçtan sorumlu olmayacaktır. Yine bu minvalde depozitodan kesinti yapılması da mümkün değildir. Depozitonun iadesinden imtina edilmesi ya da kesinti yapılabilmesi için, mutlaka dava açılması ve mahkeme kararı ile tespiti zorunludur.

Ayrıca ve önemle belirtmek gerekir ki, kiralayan ya da ev sahipleri teslim esnasında boya yapılmadığı gerekçesiyle kiracıdan herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamayacak ve yukarıda bahsettiğimiz üzere mahkeme kararı olmaksızın depozitodan da kesinti yapamayacaktır.  Böylece kişilerin haklarını bilmesi ve bilinçli şekilde hareket etmesi olası hak kayıplarının da önüne geçecektir.

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