{"id":897,"date":"2026-04-01T10:25:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T07:25:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=897"},"modified":"2026-05-11T11:56:34","modified_gmt":"2026-05-11T08:56:34","slug":"kiraci-boya-badana-zorunda-mi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/kiraci-boya-badana-zorunda-mi\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the tenant obligated to paint or decorate the walls?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"kirac\u0131<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Tenant Painting and Decorating | Law Offices in Izmir | Efes Law Office<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kirac\u0131, Evden \u00c7\u0131karken Evi Boyatmak Zorunda m\u0131? | Kirac\u0131’n\u0131n Boya Badana Yapma Y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00d6rne\u011fin, birka\u00e7 y\u0131ll\u0131k kullan\u0131m sonucunda boyan\u0131n solmas\u0131 veya hafif \u00e7iziklerin olu\u015fmas\u0131 normal kabul edilmektedir. Kirac\u0131n\u0131n, evi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun ve \u00f6zenli kullanmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu tarz bir y\u0131pranma olu\u015fmas\u0131 durumunda, herhangi bir boya masraf\u0131n\u0131n kirac\u0131dan talep edilmesi hukuka uygun de\u011fildir. Yarg\u0131tay’da s\u00f6z konusu kararlar\u0131nda, bu t\u00fcr \u201cd\u00fc\u015f\u00fck seviyeli\u201d y\u0131pranmalar\u0131n ola\u011fan kullan\u0131m kategorisinde say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does a tenant have to repaint the house before moving out?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Article 334 of our Law of Obligations No. 6098, titled "Return of Leased Property,", \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\u201c\u2026Therefore, 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.\u201d. 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.\u201d<\/strong> <\/em>It is stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happens if a clause is included in the contract requiring the tenant to have the property painted when they vacate it? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If we look at the regulation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law No. 6098 Turkish Code of Obligations<\/a>\u2019According to Article 334 of the law, entitled "Return of Leased Property", \u201c"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<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n emsal nitelikli kararlar\u0131na bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kirac\u0131 her ne kadar kiralanan\u0131 kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fekliyle iade etme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndaysa da uygulamalar evin boyas\u0131n\u0131n ola\u011fan eskime kapsam\u0131nda oldu\u011fu ve hor kullanma halinin vuku bulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hallerde kirac\u0131n\u0131n badana yapma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndedir. B\u00f6ylece s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde dairenin yeniden boyas\u0131n\u0131 yapma borcu kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olsa bile, kirac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan k\u00f6t\u00fc kullanma s\u00f6z konusu de\u011filse kirac\u0131 bu bor\u00e7tan sorumlu olmayacakt\u0131r. Yine bu minvalde depozitodan kesinti yap\u0131lmas\u0131 da m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Depozitonun iadesinden imtina edilmesi ya da kesinti yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in, mutlaka dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 ve mahkeme karar\u0131 ile tespiti zorunludur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ayr\u0131ca ve \u00f6nemle belirtmek gerekir ki, kiralayan ya da ev sahipleri teslim esnas\u0131nda boya yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle kirac\u0131dan herhangi bir tazminat talebinde bulunamayacak ve yukar\u0131da bahsetti\u011fimiz \u00fczere mahkeme karar\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n depozitodan da kesinti yapamayacakt\u0131r.  B\u00f6ylece ki\u015filerin haklar\u0131n\u0131 bilmesi ve bilin\u00e7li \u015fekilde hareket etmesi olas\u0131 hak kay\u0131plar\u0131n\u0131n da \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7ecektir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contact our expert team for consulting services. Contact<\/mark><\/a>page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some other articles that might interest you:<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n