Turkish 
English 
Russian 
An eviction undertaking (tahliye taahhütnamesi) is a unilateral written declaration of intent by which the tenant unconditionally assumes the obligation to vacate the leased immovable on a specified date. Pursuant to Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), being made in written form is a validity condition; an oral undertaking produces no legal effect whatsoever.
This guide comprehensively addresses, in Antalya, the validity criteria of the eviction undertaking, the difference in evidentiary force between privately signed documents and notarized documents, the signature-denial procedure in enforcement proceedings, the issue of blank-signature, the parties bearing the burden of proof, the expert examination process, and the financial sanctions for an unjustified signature objection, in the light of current decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Regional Courts of Appeal.
The Legal Nature and Validity Conditions of the Eviction Undertaking
The eviction undertaking is a written document, in the nature of a unilateral promise of debt by the tenant, that ties the termination of the lease agreement to a predetermined date. For a valid undertaking to exist, the conditions that the document be in writing, be signed by the tenant, be drawn up after delivery of the leased property, and that enforcement proceedings or an eviction action be initiated within one month of the undertaken date, must all be satisfied cumulatively.
The eviction undertaking is a unilateral debt-creating transaction, constituting an independent and distinct ground for eviction separate from the lease agreement, by which the tenant declares in writing that they will vacate the leased immovable on a specified date and deliver it to the lessor. This document is a legal instrument capable of enforcement that enables the balance between the right of ownership and the right to housing to be established within the framework of freedom of contract.
Article 352 TCO and the Written-Form Requirement
The first paragraph of Article 352 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 makes the validity of the eviction undertaking conditional above all on the requirement of being in writing. The written form at issue here is not a condition of proof but a condition of validity (soundness); accordingly, an eviction promise given orally, however much it may be supported by witnesses, produces no legal effect. It is mandatory that the written text clearly contain the tenant's identity details, the address of the leased immovable, an unconditional declaration of intent to vacate, and the eviction date.
Samsun Regional Court of Appeal, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 01.06.2017, File No. 2017/1099, Decision No. 2017/1114The decision gathered the validity conditions of the eviction undertaking under Article 352/1 TCO into four elements: that it be in writing, that the undertaking be given by the tenant, that it be drawn up after delivery of the leased property, and that enforcement proceedings or an action be initiated within one month of the undertaken date. The cumulative satisfaction of these conditions is mandatory for the undertaking to be enforceable.
The Relationship Between the Date of Issue and Free Will
For the eviction undertaking to be valid, it must have been given on a date after the conclusion of the lease agreement and after delivery of the leased property to the tenant. An undertaking signed on the same day as the lease agreement is deemed to have been given under pressure, on the assumption that the tenant was compelled to sign this document in order to be able to lease the immovable, and this renders the undertaking invalid. However, the tenant's frequently invoked assertion in practice that "I signed a blank sheet and the date was filled in afterward" is assessed within the framework of the "blank-signature" doctrine before the courts.
Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 37th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 07.11.2024, File No. 2023/1966, Decision No. 2024/2204The decision held that, where the undertaking is given blank, the defendant, by signing the document, has accepted in advance how the blank part will be filled in and has given the lessor the authority to write the date they wish, and must therefore bear the consequence of this. The tenant may prove that the document was filled in against their will only by written evidence of equal force; witness statements are not deemed sufficient to prove this allegation.
The Legal Binding Force of the Signature
The signature is the most fundamental element that ensures the undertaking is reflected intelligibly to the outside world and binds its author. Whether privately made or drawn up by a notary, that the signature beneath the text belongs to the tenant or their authorized representative is an inviolable rule. In the eviction disputes heard before the Antalya Civil Courts of Peace, this principle is applied meticulously as the concrete manifestation of freedom of contract and legal certainty.
Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 55th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 06.11.2024, File No. 2023/2466, Decision No. 2024/2665It was emphasized that the signature affixed binds the tenant who is the signatory, and that the objection that the dates in the document containing the eviction undertaking were filled in afterward cannot be given credit. The physical completion of the document afterward does not vitiate its legal validity; the free declaration of intent is deemed fixed by the consent existing at the moment the signature was affixed.
The Fundamental Differences Between a Privately Signed and a Notarized Undertaking
Eviction undertakings are divided, according to the manner in which they are drawn up, into two: privately signed and drawn up or certified by a notary. This distinction produces consequences that determine the fate of the process in terms of the burden of proof and the court's jurisdiction, particularly at the enforcement-proceedings stage and in the event of a possible signature denial. In the actions heard before the Antalya Enforcement Courts, the effect of this distinction on the parties directly affects how long the evidentiary process will take and which court will have jurisdiction.
The Privately Signed Undertaking
A privately signed eviction undertaking is a document signed by the parties between themselves, containing no approval by any official authority. When made the subject of enforcement proceedings, if the tenant objects to the signature it causes the proceedings to be stayed. Because it has limited jurisdiction, the enforcement court does not have the authority to have the signature on a private document examined; in this case the lessor is compelled to bring an action before the general courts in order to prove the authenticity of the signature.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 10.04.2013, File No. 2013/5180, Decision No. 2013/6520It was held that, where the claimant lessor relies on a privately signed eviction undertaking and the defendant tenant expressly denies their signature on this privately signed eviction undertaking, the enforcement court does not have the authority to have the denied signature examined, and that for this reason the lessor must bring an action before the general court.
The Undertaking Drawn Up by a Notary
Eviction undertakings drawn up ex officio by a notary or whose signature is certified by a notary have the status of an official document under the Code of Civil Procedure. Their being deemed conclusive evidence until their falsity is proved offers the lessor much stronger legal protection. Undertakings drawn up before notaries in Antalya are, owing to the region's real-estate-intensive structure, a frequently preferred instrument in lease-law disputes.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 24.01.2012, File No. 2011/12397, Decision No. 2012/620It was held that, pursuant to Article 275/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra İflas Kanunu), where the eviction undertaking rests on a document drawn up ex officio by a notary, the tenant must prove the contrary of this document by a document of the same force and character, and that simple objections do not suffice to stay the enforcement proceedings.
In notarially drawn-up undertakings the burden of proof shifts entirely and rests on the objecting tenant. Moreover, owing to the "in the form of drawing up" character of these documents, the defendant's objections directed at their capacity as tenant cannot be heard either (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 24.03.2016, File No. 2015/7199, Decision No. 2016/2363).
| Comparison Criterion | Privately Signed Undertaking | Notary-Certified / Drawn-Up Undertaking |
|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary Force | Limited; proceedings are stayed upon objection | Official document; the contrary is proved by a document of equal force |
| Effect of Signature Denial | The enforcement court cannot have the signature examined; referred to the general court | The objection does not stay the proceedings; the process continues to operate |
| Burden of Proof | On the lessor (must prove the authenticity of the signature) | On the tenant (must prove the contrary of the official document) |
| Adjudication Process | Requires expert examination, may be prolonged | Fast; has the character of conclusive evidence |
| Objection to Tenant Capacity | Can be disputed | Not heard in documents in the form of drawing up |
| Legal Basis | Art. 352 TCO + Arts. 200-201 CCP | Art. 352 TCO + Art. 275/2 EBL |
Signature Denial in Enforcement Proceedings and the Article 62/5 EBL Procedure
Foremost among the tenant's defense mechanisms in enforcement proceedings based on an eviction undertaking is signature denial. However, signature denial is a technical legal fact that must be made, beyond an ordinary objection, by a specific declaration of intent. A denial not made in accordance with procedure amounts to an implied acceptance of the document and renders the tenant's right of defense effectively unusable.
The "Separately and Expressly" Declaration Requirement
Article 62/5 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law lays down in definite terms the procedure that the debtor must follow where they reject the signature beneath the instrument or document forming the basis of the proceedings. Accordingly, if the tenant asserts that the signature on the undertaking does not belong to them, they must state this objection "separately and expressly" in the application they make within the time limit against the payment order. General expressions such as merely "I object to the debt" or "the eviction demand is unjustified" give rise to the presumption that the signature has been accepted.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 25.03.2013, File No. 2013/3233, Decision No. 2013/5197Pursuant to Article 62/5 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, if the debtor rejects their signature beneath the instrument forming the basis of the proceedings, they must state this separately and expressly in their objection; otherwise they are deemed to have accepted the signature on the instrument for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings. This precedent clearly establishes that a signature denial not made in accordance with procedure amounts to an implied acceptance of the document's soundness.
Where the tenant, despite having objected to the proceedings, does not expressly contest the signature on the undertaking, the undertaking is deemed valid and the process advances swiftly in favor of the lessor. For this reason, lawyers practicing in Antalya attach particular importance to setting out the signature denial under a special heading and in clear terms in objection petitions to the payment order.
The Blank-Signature Doctrine
One of the defenses most frequently invoked by tenants in practice is the assertion that the undertaking was blank at the moment of signature and that the dates or other parts were filled in afterward by the lessor. This situation, termed blank-signature, rests on the premise that the person who signed the blank sheet gave the other party trust and authority to fill in the document in accordance with the agreement. Settled judicial decisions accept that a person who signs a blank document must bear the legal consequences of that document being filled in afterward.
Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Decision dated 21.02.2023, File No. 2022/8307, Decision No. 2023/168The decision reaches the conclusion that, where the tenant affixes a blank signature to a blank sheet without a date being written, how and in what manner the blank sheet will be filled in by the lessor is accepted in advance by the signing tenant. The assertion that the document was filled in contrary to the actual agreement between the parties can be proved only by written evidence pursuant to Articles 200 and 201 CCP; witness statements are not sufficient.
The Effect of a Signature Objection in Staying the Proceedings
A signature objection made within the time limit and in accordance with procedure (separately and expressly) stays the proceedings automatically. At this point the nature of the document takes on great importance: if the document forming the basis of the proceedings is not drawn up or certified by a notary, the lessor must, in order to overcome this objection, demand the removal of the objection from the enforcement court or the annulment of the objection from the general courts.
Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 59th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 20.11.2024, File No. 2024/889, Decision No. 2024/1203It was emphasized that, unless the eviction undertaking rests on a document drawn up ex officio by a notary or whose date and signature have been certified or acknowledged, where the signature and eviction date in the undertaking are objected to, the eviction of the leased property cannot be demanded from the enforcement court. This situation makes it necessary for signature suspicions in privately signed documents to be resolved through a full-fledged adjudication.
The Burden of Proof and Expert Examination in the Adjudication Process
Signature denial takes the adjudication process out of a purely procedural-law matter and moves it into a technical evidentiary channel. At this stage, the necessity of bringing the material truth to light in order to resolve the dispute requires the meticulous application of both the CCP and the EBL provisions. Signature denial temporarily suspends the evidentiary force of the privately signed document in the lessor's hands and fundamentally alters the balance of the burden of proof between the parties.
The Passing of the Burden of Proof to the Lessor
Where the signature on a private document is denied, the falsity of that document is deemed to have been alleged, and the burden of proving the authenticity of the document is placed on the party relying on it. In eviction disputes, this means that the lessor comes under the obligation to prove that the signature on the undertaking they submitted is the product of the tenant's own hand. The court placing the burden of proof on the tenant contravenes the fundamental principles of procedural law and is deemed a ground for reversal.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 27.06.2013, File No. 2012/16860, Decision No. 2013/11230It was expressly held that, by the nature of the action, the burden of proving that the signature belongs to the tenant lies on the claimant lessor. The decision establishes that placing the burden of proof on the wrong party is a ground for reversal on appeal review.
Article 211 CCP — The Graduated Examination Procedure
The procedure of the evidentiary process presents a graduated structure within the framework of Article 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the event of a signature denial, before proceeding directly to an expert examination, the court must follow certain procedural steps: first the interrogation (isticvap) of the party, then the taking of writing and signature in the court's presence, and only if these steps do not form a sufficient conviction must recourse be had to an examination by a specialist expert.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 01.04.2013, File No. 2013/3149, Decision No. 2013/5801It was stated that the judge, after interrogating the party who denies the writing or signature, if unable to form a conviction, must have that person write and sign in the court's presence and assess the document thus obtained together with the other evidence. This sequential examination is of critical importance both for the efficiency of the adjudication and for the protection of the parties' freedom to seek justice.
Comparison Signature Samples and the Requirement of the Original Document
The technical success of the expert examination is directly connected with the quality and quantity of the comparison signature samples to be taken as the basis for comparison. It is mandatory for the court to obtain the original signatures from land registry directorates, banks, notaries, civil registry directorates, or court files in which the tenant was previously a party. Signatures affixed in a period close to the date of the undertaking are of primary importance in particular in order to eliminate factors such as aging or hand tremor.
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 06.02.2012, File No. 2011/13420, Decision No. 2012/1505It was held that, on the ground that elements such as the degree of fluency, speed, and pressure, which are among the identification criteria of signatures and writing, are lost in photocopy documents, the signature examination must absolutely be carried out on the original document. Where the original document cannot be submitted to the file, the lessor is deemed to have failed to discharge the burden of proof and the action must be dismissed.
Exploratory signatures taken in the court's presence are not sufficient on their own. A person denying their signature may show a tendency to deliberately alter or imitate their signature. For this reason, the technical examination must be carried out through a specialist expert on the tenant's stabilized signature samples held at official institutions (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 21.02.2011, File No. 2010/10951, Decision No. 2011/1687).
The Financial Consequences and Penal Sanctions of an Unjustified Signature Objection
The unjustified or bad-faith use of signature denial is not protected by the legal order. Within the framework of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the Turkish Code of Obligations, there are grave financial consequences of signature objections contrary to the truth and sanctions for conduct that harms procedural economy. These sanctions aim to increase the deterrence of baseless objections made by the tenant merely to prolong the process.
Enforcement Denial Compensation and Monetary Penalty
Pursuant to Article 68/7 EBL, if the debtor's signature objection is found unjustified in the action for the removal of the objection, the court orders against the debtor enforcement denial compensation of not less than twenty percent of the rejected portion, and additionally a monetary penalty at the rate of ten percent of the value in dispute. These sanctions are aimed at preventing the tenant from needlessly occupying the judicial system.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 18.05.2011, File No. 2011/289, Decision No. 2011/335The decision indicates that, where the authenticity of the signature is determined by a court decision, a final judgment binding the entire legal relationship between the parties arises. If the genuineness of the signature has been established by an expert report, there is no need at subsequent stages to re-debate the fact of the signature's authenticity or to obtain a new expert report.
The Rule of Good Faith and Contradictory Declaration
The rule of good faith regulated in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code is a fundamental principle in the exercise of rights. The conduct of a tenant who denies their signature on the eviction undertaking despite knowing it, or who subsequently abuses the authority they gave by affixing a blank signature, harms the principle of legal certainty. Courts assess the tenant's inconsistent defenses in the concrete case as a contravention of the rule of good faith and aggravate the burden of proof.
In the Antalya real estate market, the intensity of tourism-oriented immovable management also increases the technical complexity of lease-law disputes. This structure, in which seasonal leases and long-term commercial leases are intertwined, makes the correct drawing up of eviction undertakings and the obtaining of legal support more critical than ever.
Signature denial should not be seen merely as a defense strategy. A denial that cannot be supported by scientific data turns into serious financial burdens as enforcement denial compensation, monetary penalty, adjudication costs, expert fees, and proportional attorney fees. Leaving the adjudication costs and the attorney fees on the tenant who is found unjustified, when combined with the proportional attorney fee calculated over the annual rent value of the immovable, constitutes a rather heavy financial responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Eviction Undertaking and Signature Denial
Is an eviction undertaking valid if it is signed on the same day as the lease agreement?
No. The eviction undertaking must be given on a date after the conclusion of the lease agreement and after delivery of the leased property to the tenant. An undertaking signed on the same day is presumed to have been signed by the tenant under pressure in order to be able to lease the immovable, and is deemed invalid. However, if the document was drawn up with a date affixed afterward, the blank-signature doctrine applies and the undertaking may be deemed valid.
Is an eviction undertaking signed on a blank sheet legally binding?
Yes. Pursuant to the blank-signature doctrine, a person who affixes a signature to a blank sheet is deemed to have accepted in advance that the sheet will be filled in by the other party in accordance with the agreement. The assertion that the document was filled in contrary to the actual agreement can be proved only by written evidence pursuant to Articles 200 and 201 CCP; witness statements are not sufficient to prove this allegation.
How must a signature objection be made in enforcement proceedings?
Pursuant to Article 62/5 EBL, the signature objection must be made "separately and expressly." General expressions such as merely "I object to the debt" give rise to the presumption that the signature has been accepted. The signature denial must be stated in the objection petition under a special heading, in definite and clear terms; otherwise the document is deemed to have been implicitly accepted.
Which court has jurisdiction if a signature denial is made against a privately signed eviction undertaking?
For privately signed documents, the enforcement court, owing to its limited jurisdiction, does not have the authority to have the signature examined. In this case the lessor must bring an action for the annulment of the objection before the civil court of peace in order to prove the authenticity of the signature. In the adjudication, a signature examination is carried out through a specialist expert.
How is a notarized eviction undertaking objected to?
Pursuant to Article 275/2 EBL, an objection made to an eviction undertaking drawn up ex officio by a notary or whose signature is certified must be supported only by an official document of the same force and character. A simple signature objection does not stay the enforcement proceedings; the falsity of the official document must be separately proved. This situation places the burden of proof entirely on the tenant.
How is an expert signature examination carried out and which documents are used?
The signature examination is carried out on the tenant's stabilized signature samples held at official institutions such as the land registry, banks, notaries, and the civil registry directorate. The court obtains these samples and has a comparison made through an expert specialized in physics, graphology, and forgery. The examination must absolutely be carried out on the original document; in photocopy documents the degree of fluency, speed, and pressure are lost, so a sound result cannot be obtained.
What are the sanctions an unjustified signature objection brings upon the tenant?
Pursuant to Article 68/7 EBL, a tenant who raises an unjustified signature objection is sentenced to enforcement denial compensation of not less than twenty percent of the value in dispute and a monetary penalty at the rate of ten percent. In addition to these, the adjudication costs, expert fees, and the proportional attorney fee calculated over the annual rent value of the immovable are also placed on the tenant.
General information about the relevant types of action can be found on the legal process in title-deed and immovable disputes page.
