Transfer Without Explanation, Transfer without Explanation, Claim that Pay Belongs to Another Commercial Relationship, Burden of Proof, Supreme Court Decision

Summary:

An expert examination was conducted by the court, the expert witness is the defendant tenant Y. Erzurum branch of Ziraat Bank from the account that was made Akbank account to uncomment 13.200 TL deposit belongs to the plaintiff discovered, dated 20.01.2015 plaintiff attorney in the court of rent arrears of these payments have been made under the payment is done for other commercial business reported that counsel for defendants in the same court, together with any other legal relationship between an annual rent of GBP 12.000, asserts that a deposit of GBP 1,200 was paid.

Although the plaintiff has claimed that there is another legal relationship between the lessor and the lessor, and has claimed that these payments have not been paid under the rent debt, the burden of proving that there is another legal relationship between the Decedent belongs to the Decedent lessor. In this case, the court should make a decision based on the conclusion that the burden of proof that the payments were made due to another legal relationship belongs to the plaintiff, while it is not correct to make a judgment with incomplete examination in written form.

T.C.
Supreme
6. law office

Main Number: 2015/5808
Decision No:2016/1336
K. Date:25.2.2016

COURT : Magistrate’s Court
TYPE OF CASE : Cancellation of the appeal

The decision on the cancellation of the above-mentioned objection, the date and number of which was given by the local court, was appealed by the defendants within the time limit, and all the papers in the file were read, discussed and considered as necessary.
The case is related to the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of the rent receivable. Upon the decision of the court to accept the case, the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The plaintiff’s attorney in the suit, the defendants $ 1,000 they failed to pay the monthly account with 7 month’s rent lease receivables collection launched about them on the executive proceeding by specifying that the defendant has demanded the withdrawal of the objection of Appeal unfair. The defendants’ attorney defended the dismissal of the case by arguing that the rent fees were paid through his branch. The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that there is no credit record in the bank account on behalf of the plaintiff.
There is no dispute about the existence of a lease agreement signed between the parties with a starting date of 04.02.2013 and a period of one year. Dec. With the contract, the monthly rental price is determined as 1.000 TL. February August Dec. 2013, the plaintiff has requested the collection of a total of 7.000 TL rent receivable from 1.000 TL per month, including the rental fees between February and August 2014, with the enforcement proceedings of 12.05.2014 initiated by the lessor on the basis of this lease agreement. The defendants objected to the entire debt by arguing that the rental fees were paid to the bank in their objections made during the period.
Constructed examination by the court, an expert witness for the defendant tenant …’s from the account in the branch…, the plaintiff discovered that the account belongs to uncomment 13.200 TL deposit was made, the plaintiff in the court of rent arrears of these payments have been made under attorney dated 20.01.2015 if payment is done for other commercial business reported that counsel for defendants in the same court, together with any other legal relationship between an annual rent of GBP 12.000, asserts that a deposit of GBP 1,200 was paid. Subject to the receipt of a trial by the court examined, in correspondence with the account is made and accepted on behalf of the plaintiff on the grounds that it is not the case, also, if the account in question belongs to the tenant, that the plaintiff’s account from the account where the payment is made, the payments on 07.06.2013 1.200 TL 5.000 TL on 18.06.2013, 3.500 TL on 05.07.2013, on 16.08.2013 3.500 TL made in, and the description in the memo of the absence of these payments in the acceptance by the plaintiff, but it was suggested that legal relationship to another. The plaintiff requested the rental price of the first 7 months from the beginning of the contract with the enforcement proceedings, and the defendant party paid the plaintiff 13.200 TL through the bank. Although the plaintiff has claimed that there is another legal relationship between the lessor and the lessor, and has claimed that these payments have not been paid under the rent debt, the burden of proving that there is another legal relationship between the Decedent belongs to the Decedent lessor. In this case, the court should make a decision based on the conclusion that the burden of proof that the payments were made due to another legal relationship belongs to the plaintiff, while it is not correct to make a judgment with incomplete examination in written form.
The judgment must therefore be overturned.
CONCLUSION: HMK No. 6100 with the acceptance of appeals for the reasons described above.or temporary 3, added by Law No. 6217.HUMK by observing the provision of the article.nin 428.it was unanimously decided on 25.02.2016 to overturn the provision in accordance with the article and to return the appeal fee received in advance to the appellants upon request

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.