Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 2018\/634 E. Ve 2021\/1171 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131na konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; Davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a, daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n, m\u00fcvekkiline ait olan daireyi kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kira \u00f6demesi yapmamas\u0131 nedeniyle icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n takibe haks\u0131z itiraz etmesi nedeniyle itiraz\u0131n iptali ile takibin devam\u0131na karar verilmesini dava edilmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a yap\u0131lan savunmada ise, davac\u0131ya ait i\u015fyerinde i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131na \u00fccretsiz lojman tahsis etti\u011fini, davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kirac\u0131 olarak de\u011fil de, \u0130\u015f Kanunu\u2019na g\u00f6re ayn\u00ee yard\u0131m niteli\u011finde ve \u00fccret eki olarak lojmanda kira \u00f6demeden oturdu\u011funu; ayr\u0131ca \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik haklar\u0131 ile ilgili dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131ktan sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n da kiraya ili\u015fkin i\u015fbu davay\u0131 ik\u00e2me etti\u011fini iddia edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yarg\u0131tay HGK Karar\u0131nda; kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulundu\u011fu yaz\u0131l\u0131 belge ile sabit oldu\u011fu ancak kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayanarak d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a herhangi bir talep bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 \u00fczerine eldeki davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mevcut iken d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde herhangi bir talepte bulunulmamas\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7iye her ay \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6denen \u00fccretlerden kira bedeli olarak herhangi bir kesinti yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n tahliyesinin sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 gibi hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131na itibar edilerek, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hukuk\u00ee ili\u015fkinin ger\u00e7ek bir kira ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131ya i\u015f ili\u015fkisi sebebiyle kira bedeli \u00f6demeden oturmas\u0131 i\u00e7in tahsis edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na g\u00f6re de herhangi bir bedel al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca daval\u0131n\u0131n kiralananda oturmas\u0131na izin verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n i\u015f ili\u015fkisi sona erdi\u011finde bo\u015fald\u0131\u011f\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131narak davan\u0131n reddi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 2018\/634 E. Ve 2021\/1171 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201citiraz\u0131n iptali\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, Konya 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 vekilinin temyizi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 6. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.
2. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:
I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130
Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:
4. Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n, m\u00fcvekkiline ait olan daireyi 01.10.2009 tarihinden 01.06.2013 tarihine kadar aralar\u0131ndaki 01.10.2009 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kira \u00f6demesi yapmamas\u0131 nedeniyle 13.500TL tutar\u0131ndaki kira bedeli i\u00e7in aleyhine Konya 8. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/10841 say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n takibe haks\u0131z itiraz ederek takibin durmas\u0131na neden oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek itiraz\u0131n iptali ile takibin devam\u0131na, daval\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n %20\u2019si oran\u0131nda icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131na mahk\u00fbm edilmesine karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
5. Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin davac\u0131ya ait i\u015fyerinde i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131na \u00fccretsiz lojman tahsis etti\u011fini, lojman tahsis edemedi\u011fine kira paras\u0131 \u00f6dedi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kirac\u0131 olarak de\u011fil de, \u0130\u015f Kanunu\u2019na g\u00f6re ayn\u00ee yard\u0131m niteli\u011finde ve \u00fccret eki olarak lojmanda kira \u00f6demeden oturdu\u011funu; ayr\u0131ca Konya 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinde i\u015f\u00e7ilik haklar\u0131 ile ilgili dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131ktan sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n da m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine eldeki davay\u0131 ik\u00e2me etti\u011fini ve m\u00fcvekkilinden 45 ayl\u0131k kira bedeli istedi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n bu nedenle k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli oldu\u011funu belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015f ve ayr\u0131ca davac\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n %40\u2019\u0131 oran\u0131nda k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131na mahk\u00fbm edilmesine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 06.11.2014 tarihli duru\u015fmada ise kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki imzalar\u0131n kendisine ait oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fvereni oldu\u011funu, i\u015fyerindeki uygulamaya g\u00f6re i\u015f\u00e7ilerine kira yard\u0131m\u0131 ya da lojman vermek suretiyle yard\u0131m etti\u011fini, lojman verdi\u011fi ki\u015filerle elektrik su \u00f6demeleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n iki tane \u015firketi bulundu\u011funu ve bu \u015fekilde bir uygulama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla herhangi bir kira borcu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zira i\u015ften ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcn evi de tahliye etti\u011fini, ancak davac\u0131ya y\u00f6nelik i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n da kira bedeli istedi\u011fini ve bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi Karar\u0131:
6. Konya 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 09.06.2015 tarihli ve 2014\/738 E., 2015\/1309 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; Konya 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin 2013\/644 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 G\u00fcnkar Motorlu Ara\u00e7lar Sanayi Ltd. \u015eti. aleyhine i\u015f\u00e7i alacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015firketin davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011fullar\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu, bilirki\u015fi incelemesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n h\u00e2len derdest oldu\u011fu, taraflar aras\u0131nda yaz\u0131l\u0131 kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulundu\u011fu, ancak 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine istinaden d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a herhangi bir talep de bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131 i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 nedeniyle kira alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mevcut iken d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde herhangi bir talepte bulunulmamas\u0131, tahliyesinin sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 gibi olgular kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daval\u0131 taraf savunmalar\u0131na de\u011fer vermek gerekti\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7i alacaklar\u0131 talebi nedeniyle kira alaca\u011f\u0131 talebine y\u00f6neldi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na g\u00f6re herhangi bir bedel almaks\u0131z\u0131n d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca daval\u0131n\u0131n kiralananda oturmas\u0131na izin verilmeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2 ve 3. maddeleri esas al\u0131narak reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
7. Konya 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.
8. Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 6. Hukuk Dairesinin 16.06.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/9841 E., 2016\/4718 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;
\u201c\u2026Dava, kira alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsiline y\u00f6nelik ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibine yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n iptali istemine ili\u015fkindir. Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
Davac\u0131 dava dilek\u00e7esinde, 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli 1 y\u0131l s\u00fcreli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca ayl\u0131k 300 TL\u2019den \u00f6denmeyen 01.10.2009 ile 01.6.2013 tarihleri aras\u0131 45 ayl\u0131k toplam 13.500TL kira alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemli ba\u015flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 icra takibine daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n iptalini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 cevap dilek\u00e7esinde, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7isi oldu\u011funu, taraf\u0131na tahsis edilen ve \u00fccret istenmeyen lojman nedeniyle borcu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7i alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemiyle Konya 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin 2013\/644 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava sonras\u0131nda k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olarak kira alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsili amac\u0131yla icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek haks\u0131z ve yersiz a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.
Taraflar aras\u0131nda 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi hususunda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 6.11.2014 tarihli celsede kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki imzay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131, 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi nedeniyle \u00f6denmeyen kira alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemiyle icra takibi ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f olup daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve alt\u0131ndaki imzay\u0131 kabul etti\u011fine g\u00f6re i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek kira borcunun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilip olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, soyut gerek\u00e7eyle yap\u0131lan icra takibinin T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunun 2., 3. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca iyiniyetle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru de\u011fildir,\u2026\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile karar bozulmu\u015ftur.
Direnme Karar\u0131:
9. Konya 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 11.10.2016 tarihli ve 2016\/1304 E., 2016\/1603 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u00f6nceki gerek\u00e7elerle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK
11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ve kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki imzan\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a kabul edildi\u011fi eldeki davada, mahkemece i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek daval\u0131n\u0131n kira borcunun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilip olu\u015facak sonu\u00e7 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde bir karar verilmesinin gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.
III. \u00d6N SORUN
12. Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00f6ncelikle; taraflar aras\u0131nda kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n i\u015fyeri uygulamas\u0131 nedeniyle kendisine lojman olarak tahsis edildi\u011fini savundu\u011fu ve mahkemece bu savunmaya itibar edilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde eldeki davada i\u015f mahkemelerinin mi genel mahkemelerin mi g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu hususu \u00f6n sorun olarak tart\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131p de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015f, yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmelerde davan\u0131n kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 olarak ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibine ili\u015fkin itiraz\u0131n iptali davas\u0131 oldu\u011fu, i\u015f hukukundan kaynaklanan bir alaca\u011f\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan lojman olarak oturdu\u011funun ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi nedeniyle i\u015f mahkemelerinin davada g\u00f6revli olamayaca\u011f\u0131, 5521 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Mahkemeleri Kanunu\u2019na g\u00f6re de i\u015f mahkemelerinin i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klarda g\u00f6revli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00f6n sorun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na oy \u00e7oklu\u011fuyla karar verilerek, i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine ge\u00e7ilmi\u015ftir.
IV. GEREK\u00c7E
13. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in konu ile ilgili yasal d\u00fczenleme ve kavramlar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131nda yarar vard\u0131r.
14. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun (TMK) \u201cD\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 2. maddesinde;
\u201cHerkes, haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirirken d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na uymak zorundad\u0131r.
Bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeni korumaz.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir.
15. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131, herkesin uymas\u0131 gerekli olan genel ve objektif bir davran\u0131\u015f kural\u0131d\u0131r. Genel olarak d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131 ki\u015filerin taraf\u0131 olduklar\u0131 hukuk\u00ee ili\u015fkilerde d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, ahl\u00e2kl\u0131 ve di\u011fer ki\u015filerde yarat\u0131lan g\u00fcvenle tutarl\u0131 \u015fekilde davranmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder. Buna g\u00f6re belirli bir hukuk\u00ee ili\u015fkide d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f; toplumdaki d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu ve orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 bir ki\u015finin, genel ahl\u00e2k, do\u011fruluk ve kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven esaslar\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imidir. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun bu davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n belirlenmesinde, toplumda ge\u00e7erli olan genel ahl\u00e2k kurallar\u0131, g\u00fcn\u00fcn adet ve uygulamalar\u0131, davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu hukuk\u00ee ili\u015fkilerin i\u00e7erik ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nacakt\u0131r (Dural, Mustafa \/ Sar\u0131, Suat: T\u00fcrk \u00d6zel Hukuku, 6. Bask\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2011, s. 226-227).
16. D\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma \u201cbir hak sahibinin hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken veya bir bor\u00e7lunun borcunu yerine getirirken iyi ve do\u011fru hareket etmesi yani d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, makul, fiilinin neticesini bilen, orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 her insan\u0131n benzer hadiselerde takip edecek oldu\u011fu yolda hareket etmesi\u201d anlam\u0131ndad\u0131r.
17. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 2. maddesinde, hukuk d\u00fczeninin ki\u015filere tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn haklar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 ve uyulmas\u0131 gereken iki genel ilkeye yer verilmektedir: D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131 ve hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131. Hukuk d\u00fczeni, ki\u015filere tan\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131 her bir hakk\u0131n kapsam\u0131 ile bunlar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 ve \u015feklini ilgili hak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6zel olarak d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir. Ancak, hayat\u0131n sonsuz ihtimallerinin \u00f6nceden \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmesi ve bunlar\u0131n en k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ayr\u0131nt\u0131lara kadar d\u00fczenlenmesinin imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, b\u00fct\u00fcn haklar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda dikkate al\u0131nacak genel bir s\u0131n\u0131rlama koyma ihtiyac\u0131 duyulmu\u015ftur. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131 ve hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131, bu a\u00e7\u0131dan uyulmas\u0131 gerekecek genel kurallar olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r (Dural\/Sar\u0131, s. 225).
18. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 2. maddesinde, haklar\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015f, ard\u0131ndan haklar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeninin korumayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ifade \u015feklinden yola \u00e7\u0131karak; bir hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uyulmamas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fceyyidesinin, bu hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmas\u0131 ve hukuken korunmamas\u0131 oldu\u011fu kabul edilebilir (Dural\/Sar\u0131, s. 225). Ancak hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131, sadece haklar\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde s\u00f6z konusu olur. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131, sadece haklar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131nda de\u011fil, bor\u00e7lar\u0131n ifas\u0131nda da uyulmas\u0131 gereken; hukuksal i\u015flemlerin ve kanunlar\u0131n tamamlanmas\u0131nda ve yorumlanmas\u0131nda \u00f6nemli i\u015flevlere sahip bir genel kural olarak \u00e7ok daha geni\u015f bir uygulama alan\u0131na sahiptir (Kavak, Yal\u00e7\u0131n: Medeni Hukukta D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck Kural\u0131 ve \u0130yiniyetin Korunmas\u0131, 1. Bask\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2019, s. 135-136).
19. Bir hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle ba\u015fkas\u0131na bir zarar verilmesi hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2\/I h\u00fckm\u00fc herkesin haklar\u0131n\u0131, toplumda ge\u00e7erli do\u011fruluk, d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck ve i\u015f ili\u015fkilerinin gerektirdi\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun olarak kullanmas\u0131n\u0131 emreder. Hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131m \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc TMK\u2019ya g\u00f6re d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131 verir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca hak sahibinin ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131zrar kast\u0131yla hareket etmi\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya gerek yoktur. \u00d6nemli olan ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar vermek kast\u0131 de\u011fil, hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Nitekim bu hususlar Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 09.03.2021 tarihli ve 2017\/(13)3-2501 E., 2021\/233 K. ve 24.06.2020 tarihli ve 2016\/22(7)-603 E., 2020\/462 K. say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131nda da benimsenmi\u015ftir.
20. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun \u201c\u0130yiniyet\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 3. maddesi ise;
\u201cKanunun iyiniyete hukuk\u00ee bir sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda, as\u0131l olan iyiniyetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.
Ancak, durumun gereklerine g\u00f6re kendisinden beklenen \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermeyen kimse iyiniyet iddias\u0131nda bulunamaz.\u201d H\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.
21. Kanun koyucu, iyi niyet aranan h\u00e2llerde as\u0131l olan onun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r demek suretiyle, iyi niyetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fil, fakat yoklu\u011funun ispat edilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirtmektedir. Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle burada bir iyi niyet karinesi mevcuttur. Aksini iddia eden onu ispatlamak zorundad\u0131r. Ancak iyi niyet iddias\u0131nda bulunan kimsenin de gerekli \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir. Gereken \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermeyen kimse iyi niyet iddias\u0131nda bulunamaz ve iyi niyet uyar\u0131nca hak kazanamaz.
22. Bir hakk\u0131n kazan\u0131lmas\u0131na engel olan hukuk\u00ee bir eksikli\u011fin bilinmemesi veya bilinmesinin gerekmemesi halinde iyi niyetten s\u00f6z edilebilir. Haklar\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131ndaki ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n yerine getirilmesinde iyiniyete ise \u201cd\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131\u201d denilmektedir.
23. Bu noktada kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden bahsetmek gerekirse; kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kiraya verenin bir \u015feyin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 veya kullan\u0131lmas\u0131yla birlikte ondan yararlan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 kirac\u0131ya b\u0131rakmay\u0131, kirac\u0131n\u0131n da buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan kira bedelini \u00f6demeyi \u00fcstlendi\u011fi s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Bu tan\u0131mdan da anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 edimleri i\u00e7eren bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir.
24. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, bir bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ge\u00e7ici bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7in tarafa veya ba\u015fkas\u0131na ait ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r veya ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal\u0131n veya bir hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iradelerin birle\u015fmesi suretiyle olu\u015fur. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraflar\u0131, kiraya verilen maldan bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 yararlanan kirac\u0131 ile yararlanmaya raz\u0131 olan kiralayand\u0131r.
25. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde kirac\u0131n\u0131n asli edim y\u00fck\u00fcm\u00fc, kira bedelinin \u00f6denmesi; kiraya verenin asli edim y\u00fck\u00fcm\u00fc ise, kiralanan\u0131 kira s\u00fcresince kirac\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131na haz\u0131r bulundurmas\u0131d\u0131r. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun (BK) 249. maddesine g\u00f6re [6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu (TBK) m. 301] \u201cMucir, mecuru akitten maksut olan kullanma\u011fa salih bir h\u00e2lde m\u00fcstecire teslim etmek ve icar m\u00fcddeti zarf\u0131nda bu h\u00e2lde bulundurmak ile m\u00fckelleftir\u201d. Kiraya verenin teslim borcunu yerine getirmesi tek ba\u015f\u0131na asli edim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yerine getirmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekte olup s\u00f6zle\u015fme s\u00fcresince de kiralanan\u0131 kullan\u0131ma elveri\u015fli bir \u015fekilde bulundurmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.
26. Bu ilke ve a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; eldeki dava, kira bedelinin \u00f6denmemesinden dolay\u0131 davac\u0131 kiralayan taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131 kirac\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibine ili\u015fkin itiraz\u0131n iptali davas\u0131d\u0131r.
27. Konya 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin 2013\/644 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 G\u00fcnkar Motorlu Ara\u00e7lar San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. aleyhine i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015firketin davac\u0131n\u0131n o\u011fullar\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu, bilirki\u015fi incelemesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n h\u00e2len derdest oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.
28. Taraflar aras\u0131nda kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulundu\u011fu yaz\u0131l\u0131 belge ile sabit ve taraflar\u0131n da kabul\u00fcnde ise de, 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayanarak d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a herhangi bir talep bulunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 \u00fczerine eldeki davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mevcut iken d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bu y\u00f6nde herhangi bir talepte bulunulmamas\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7iye her ay \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6denen \u00fccretlerden kira bedeli olarak herhangi bir kesinti yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n tahliyesinin sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 gibi hususlar dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Hukuk Genel Kurulunun \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131na itibar edilerek, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki hukuk\u00ee ili\u015fkinin ger\u00e7ek bir kira ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131ya i\u015f ili\u015fkisi sebebiyle kira bedeli \u00f6demeden oturmas\u0131 i\u00e7in tahsis edildi\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na g\u00f6re de herhangi bir bedel al\u0131nmaks\u0131z\u0131n d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca daval\u0131n\u0131n kiralananda oturmas\u0131na izin verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Daval\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n i\u015f ili\u015fkisi sona erdi\u011finde bo\u015fald\u0131\u011f\u0131 da anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.
29. Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda; davac\u0131n\u0131n 01.10.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi nedeniyle \u00f6denmeyen kira alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemiyle daval\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 icra takibi ba\u015flatm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve alt\u0131ndaki imzay\u0131 kabul etti\u011finden i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek kira borcunun olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilip olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda belirtilen nedenlerle karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan benimsenmemi\u015ftir.
30. Di\u011fer taraftan dava tarihi 16.05.2014 oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde, gerek\u00e7eli karar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda dava tarihinin 08.08.2016 olarak g\u00f6sterilmesine ili\u015fkin yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131k mahallinde d\u00fczeltilebilir maddi hata niteli\u011finde bulundu\u011fundan ayr\u0131ca bozma nedeni yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
31. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, mahkemenin davan\u0131n reddini i\u00e7eren direnme karar\u0131 yerindedir.
32. T\u00fcm bu nedenlerle mahkemenin yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar vermesinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden usul ve yasaya uygun olan direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.
V. SONU\u00c7:
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
Davac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddi ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n ONANMASINA,
Har\u00e7 pe\u015fin al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan har\u00e7 al\u0131nmas\u0131na yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na,
6217 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 30. maddesi ile 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesi gere\u011fince uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 440\/III\/1-2 maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar d\u00fczeltme yolu kapal\u0131 olmak \u00fczere, 07.10.2021 tarihinde oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile kesin olarak karar verildi.
KAR\u015eI OY
Davac\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kendisine ait daireyi 01.10.2009 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kira borcunu \u00f6demedi\u011fini, kira bedelinin \u00f6denmesi i\u00e7in giri\u015fti\u011fi icra takibine daval\u0131n\u0131n itiraz etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek itiraz\u0131n iptali ile takibin devam\u0131na, daval\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n %20\u2019si oran\u0131nda icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131na mahk\u00fbm edilmesini istemi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131, davac\u0131ya ait i\u015fyerinde i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131na \u00fccretsiz lojman tahsis etti\u011fini, Konya 2. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesince i\u015f\u00e7ilik haklar\u0131 ile ilgili olarak dava a\u00e7t\u0131ktan sonra, davac\u0131n\u0131n bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirerek, davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.
Mahkemece, taraflar aras\u0131nda kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulundu\u011fu, ancak 01.01.2009 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine istinaden d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca kira \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmamas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n da talepte bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7i alaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik dava a\u00e7mas\u0131 nedeniyle kira alaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na g\u00f6re herhangi bir bedel almaks\u0131z\u0131n d\u00f6rt y\u0131l boyunca daval\u0131n\u0131n kiralananda oturmas\u0131na izin verilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davan\u0131n TMK 2. ve 3. maddeleri esas al\u0131narak reddine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm davac\u0131n\u0131n temyizi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay (3.HD) \/Kapat\u0131lan 6. Hukuk Dairesinin 16.06.2016 tarih ve 2015\/9841 Esas, 2016\/4718 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile bozulmu\u015f, mahkemece bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131, davac\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131, 1 Ekim 2009 tarihli ve bir y\u0131l s\u00fcreli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile mesken olarak kiralanm\u0131\u015f ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmede her ay 300TL kira bedelinin pe\u015fin olarak \u00f6denece\u011fi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 06.11.2014 tarihli celsede kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki imzay\u0131 kabul etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 kirac\u0131, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve alt\u0131ndaki imzay\u0131 kabul etti\u011fine g\u00f6re, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan kira bedelinden sorumludur. Mahkemece i\u015fin esas\u0131na girilerek, davac\u0131n\u0131n ne miktar kira alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek, olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, soyut gerek\u00e7elerle kira alaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik yap\u0131lan icra takibinin T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 2. ve 3. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca iyi niyetle ba\u011fda\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru de\u011fildir. Bu gerek\u00e7elerle direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde oldu\u011fumuzdan say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 karar\u0131na kat\u0131lam\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 2018\/634 E. Ve 2021\/1171 K. Say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131na konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; Davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a, daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n, m\u00fcvekkiline ait olan daireyi kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kira \u00f6demesi yapmamas\u0131 nedeniyle icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n takibe haks\u0131z itiraz etmesi nedeniyle itiraz\u0131n iptali ile takibin devam\u0131na karar verilmesini dava edilmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-av-hande-yetik"],"yoast_head":"\n