Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, Esas No: 2017\/1770, Karar No: 2021\/1738 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131na konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta;
1-) Davac\u0131, daval\u0131 ve e\u015finin fiili ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc sald\u0131r\u0131lar\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisini darp etti\u011fini, hakaret ve k\u00fcf\u00fcr etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek daval\u0131n\u0131n tahliyesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
2-) Daval\u0131 ise, k\u00fcf\u00fcr, hakaret ve sald\u0131r\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu, aksine davac\u0131n\u0131n kendisine y\u00f6nelik k\u00fcf\u00fcr, hakaret, tehdit ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu\u2019nun 267\/1. maddesinde tan\u0131mlanan iftira su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
3-) Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki ceza dosyalar\u0131:
-Daval\u0131n\u0131n \u015fikayeti \u00fczerine, davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda iftira ve hakaret su\u00e7undan mahkumiyet ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.
-Davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015fikayeti \u00fczerine daval\u0131 hakk\u0131nda hakaret ve basit yaralama su\u00e7undan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda delil yetersizli\u011finden beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.
4-) Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu ise,
Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda yeterli delil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle beraat etmi\u015f olmas\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar kanunu 74. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hukuk hakimini ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralayan aleyhine iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fikayette bulunarak husumeti devam ettirmesi taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira ili\u015fkisinin \u00e7ekilmez hale geldi\u011fini g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle tahliye karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis etmi\u015ftir.
\u2757\ufe0f Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, Esas No: 2017\/1770, Karar No: 2021\/1738 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131ndan \u00f6zetle; davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n birbirleri hakk\u0131nda \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunduklar\u0131, haklar\u0131nda ceza mahkemelerinde yarg\u0131lamalar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6ylelikle kira ili\u015fkisinin kiraya veren bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez h\u00e2le geldi\u011finden tahliye karar\u0131 verilmelidir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, Esas No: 2017\/1770, Karar No: 2021\/1738 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 \u201cakde ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle tahliye\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, \u0130zmir 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \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\u0131n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\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\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline ait … adresinde kirac\u0131 olarak tuhafiye i\u015fi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 adreste yine m\u00fcvekkiline ait olan 85\/B kap\u0131 numaral\u0131 d\u00fckkan bo\u015fald\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bu d\u00fckkana ge\u00e7mek istedi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin olur vermedi\u011fini, buna ra\u011fmen daval\u0131n\u0131n 85\/B kap\u0131 numaral\u0131 d\u00fckkana izinsiz ve habersiz olarak ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin ya\u015famakta oldu\u011fu Antalya\u2019dan geldi\u011finde bu duruma itiraz etti\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131 ve e\u015finin fiili ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc sald\u0131r\u0131lar\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fl\u0131 ve hasta olan m\u00fcvekkilini darp etti\u011fini, hakaret ve k\u00fcf\u00fcr etti\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n ve e\u015finin eyleminin 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun (BK) 256. maddesi gere\u011fince kiralanan\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ktan fena kullanma niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek daval\u0131n\u0131n 4165. Sokak No:85\/B adresindeki ta\u015f\u0131nmazdan tahliyesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
5. Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; dava konusu i\u015fyerinin taraflarca 26.03.2008 tarihinde imzalanan yaz\u0131l\u0131 kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131ndan ayl\u0131k 500TL kira bedeli ile kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bug\u00fcne kadar i\u015flemi\u015f kira bedellerinin de \u00f6dendi\u011fini, davac\u0131 tarafa y\u00f6nelik k\u00fcf\u00fcr, hakaret ve sald\u0131r\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131n tamamen as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu, aksine davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline y\u00f6nelik k\u00fcf\u00fcr, hakaret, tehdit ve 5237 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ceza Kanunu\u2019nun 267\/1. maddesinde tan\u0131mlanan iftira su\u00e7unu i\u015fledi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin ta\u015f\u0131nmazda yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 birtak\u0131m tadilat, tamirat ve tefri\u015ften sonra tahliye etmesi konusunda tehdit ve hakarette bulundu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin i\u015fyerini i\u015fgal etti\u011fi iftiras\u0131 ile Konak Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131na idari ba\u015fvuru yaparak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 3091 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun uyar\u0131nca tahliye edilmesini talep etti\u011fini, ancak i\u015fyerinin m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131ndan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle talebin reddine karar verildi\u011fini, davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i olundu\u011funu ve soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
6. \u0130zmir 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 13.11.2014 tarihli ve 2008\/682 E., 2014\/1001 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; daval\u0131n\u0131n, davac\u0131lar\u0131n murisi … hakk\u0131nda iftira ve hakaret su\u00e7undan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yet \u00fczerine a\u00e7\u0131lan kamu davas\u0131nda \u0130zmir 18. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesinin 14.04.2008 tarihli ve 2011\/157 E., 2012\/36 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile muris …\u2019\u0131n mahkumiyetine karar verildi\u011fi, murisin \u015fik\u00e2yeti \u00fczerine daval\u0131 hakk\u0131nda \u0130zmir 10. Sulh Ceza Mahkemesinde hakaret ve basit yaralama su\u00e7undan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda delil yetersizli\u011finden beraat karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f ise de ceza mahkemesinin beraat karar\u0131 hukuk h\u00e2kimini ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan taraflar\u0131n g\u00f6sterdikleri tan\u0131klar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n dinlendi\u011fi, bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n dinlenmesinden vazge\u00e7ildi\u011fi, davac\u0131 murisin tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fatmana\u2019n\u0131n davac\u0131 murisin e\u015fi, Davut \u00d6zel\u2019in ise kirac\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu, …\u2019\u0131n ceza davas\u0131nda dinlenmedi\u011fi, mahkemedeki ifadesinin samimi g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, davac\u0131 murisin tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 Davut \u00d6zel\u2019in haz\u0131rl\u0131k a\u015famas\u0131ndaki ifadesinde ve ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda g\u00f6rg\u00fcs\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesine ra\u011fmen mahkememizde aksi y\u00f6nde beyanda bulundu\u011fu, bu tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n son ifadesinin de samimi g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, tan\u0131k Z\u00fclfiye ve …’in haz\u0131rl\u0131k a\u015famas\u0131ndaki ifadesi ile ceza mahkemesindeki ifadesinin \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011fu, di\u011fer tan\u0131klar\u0131n hakarete ili\u015fkin g\u00f6rg\u00fclerinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
7. Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.
8. Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 6. Hukuk Dairesinin 16.04.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/2281 E., 2015\/3848 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u201c\u2026Davac\u0131lar murisi ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda 20.3.2008 tarihli 3 y\u0131l s\u00fcreli tuhafiyeci d\u00fckkan\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralayana y\u00f6nelik hakaret ve basit yaralama eyleminin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu hususun kira ili\u015fkisini \u00e7ekilmez hale sokup sokmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda toplanmaktad\u0131r.
Dosya kapsam\u0131ndan, kiralayan\u0131n \u015fikayeti \u00fczerine daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda hakaret ve basit yaralama su\u00e7undan kamu davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130zmir 10.Sulh Ceza Mahkemesinin 2008\/2319 Esas ve 2009\/1630 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyada yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, daval\u0131n\u0131n \u201cmahkumiyetine yeter delil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcsnet su\u00e7 sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan beraatine\u201d karar verildi\u011fi karar\u0131n temyiz incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek kesinle\u015fti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Hakk\u0131nda beraat karar\u0131 verilen daval\u0131 kirac\u0131 ise kiralayan hakk\u0131nda iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fikayet\u00e7i oldu\u011fu 2011\/157 Esas ve 2012\/36 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyada yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda kiralayan hakk\u0131nda iftira su\u00e7undan cezaland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, H\u00fckm\u00fcn A\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n Geri B\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fi karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ceza dosyas\u0131nda dinlenen tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131ndan daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralayana y\u00f6nelik fiili ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc eyleminin oldu\u011fu hakaret i\u00e7erikli s\u00f6zler s\u00f6yledi\u011fi, kiralayana y\u00f6nelik manevi \u0131zrar yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Daval\u0131n\u0131n, ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda yeterli delil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle beraat etmi\u015f olmas\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar kanunu 74. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hukuk hakimini ba\u011flamaz. Ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda eylemin yasada belirtilen tipik su\u00e7 tan\u0131m\u0131na uyup uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kast unsurunun ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi de\u011ferlendirilirken, hukuk hakimi, eylem su\u00e7 te\u015fkil etmese de daha geni\u015f bir yorumla eylemin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 eylem nedeniyle \u00e7ekilmez hale gelip gelmedi\u011fini inceler. Gerek ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda dinlenen tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131 gerekse daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralayan aleyhine iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fikayette bulunarak husumeti devam ettirmesi taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira ili\u015fkisinin \u00e7ekilmez hale geldi\u011fini g\u00f6stermektedir. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu 316\/2. (do\u011frusu 316\/3.) maddesindeki \u015fartlar\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu kabul edilerek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken a\u00e7\u0131klanan hususlara uyulmadan yaz\u0131l\u0131 bi\u00e7imde davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru de\u011fildir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile karar bozulmu\u015ftur.
Direnme Karar\u0131:
9. \u0130zmir 1. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 17.09.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/698 E., 2015\/839 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; Yarg\u0131tay bozma ilam\u0131nda, kirac\u0131n\u0131n, kiralayan aleyhine iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmas\u0131 hususunun kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u00e7ekilmez h\u00e2le gelmesi olarak kabul edildi\u011fi, kirac\u0131n\u0131n iftira su\u00e7undan kiralayan aleyhine \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n, kirac\u0131n\u0131n BK’n\u0131n 256\/1. maddesinde belirtilen \u201cicap eden vazifeye\u201d 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019ndaki (TBK) \u201csayg\u0131 g\u00f6stermek\u201d y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ancak kirac\u0131n\u0131n Anayasal bir hak olan \u015fik\u00e2yet hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131 hususunun g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edildi\u011fi, Anayasal bir hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanan kirac\u0131ya, bu hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 aleyhine hukuk\u00ee sonu\u00e7 y\u00fcklenmesinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kiraya verenin kendi eylemi ile iftira su\u00e7unun olu\u015fmas\u0131na neden oldu\u011fu ve bu durumdan yararland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, gerek kirac\u0131n\u0131n gerekse kiraya verenin birbirilerine sayg\u0131l\u0131 davranmak zorunda oldu\u011fu, kirac\u0131n\u0131n iftira su\u00e7undan yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fik\u00e2yetinin aleyhine sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmas\u0131n\u0131n yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK
11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; somut olayda, ceza yarg\u0131lamas\u0131nda dinlenen tan\u0131k anlat\u0131mlar\u0131 ve daval\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiraya veren aleyhine iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira ili\u015fkisinin \u00e7ekilmez h\u00e2le gelip gelmedi\u011fi, buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re kiralanan\u0131n tahliyesine karar verilmesinin gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.
III. GEREK\u00c7E
12. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6ncelikle \u201cakde ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle tahliye” davalar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda fayda bulunmaktad\u0131r.
13. Akde ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle tahliye davalar\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 256. (TBK\u2019n\u0131n 316.) maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re: \u201cM\u00fcstecir mecuru kullan\u0131rken tam bir ihtimam dairesinde hareket ve apartman icar\u0131nda bina dahilinde oturanlara kar\u015f\u0131 icabeden vazifeleri ifa ile m\u00fckelleftir.
M\u00fcstecir vukubulan ihtara ra\u011fmen bu m\u00fckellefiyete daimi surette muhalefet eder yahut a\u00e7\u0131ktan a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa fena kullanarak mecura daimi bir zarar iras eylerse mucir tazminat ile birlikte icar akdinin hemen feshini talep edebilir.\u201d
14. Ayn\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm TBK\u2019n\u0131n 316. maddesinde \u201cKirac\u0131, kiralanan\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun olarak \u00f6zenle kullanmak ve kiralanan\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda oturan ki\u015filer ile kom\u015fulara gerekli sayg\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6stermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.
Kirac\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmas\u0131 durumunda kiraya veren, konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiras\u0131nda, en \u00a0az otuz g\u00fcn s\u00fcre vererek, ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi, aksi takdirde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshedece\u011fi konusunda yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir ihtarda bulunur. Di\u011fer kira ili\u015fkilerinde ise, kiraya veren, kirac\u0131ya \u00f6nceden bir ihtarda bulunmaks\u0131z\u0131n, yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir bildirimle s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi hemen feshedebilir.
Konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiras\u0131nda, kirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralanana kasten a\u011f\u0131r bir zarar vermesi, kirac\u0131ya verilecek s\u00fcrenin yarars\u0131z olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 veya kirac\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kiraya veren veya ayn\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda oturan ki\u015filer ile kom\u015fular bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez olmas\u0131 durumlar\u0131nda kiraya veren, yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir bildirimle s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi hemen feshedebilir.\u201d \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.
15. Kirac\u0131, kiralanan\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun kullanmal\u0131, ona zarar verecek davran\u0131\u015flardan ka\u00e7\u0131nmal\u0131, kendi mal\u0131na g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi dikkat ve \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermelidir. Bunun yan\u0131nda kirac\u0131, kiraya veren ile kiralanan\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmazda oturan ki\u015filere ve kom\u015fulara gerekli sayg\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6stermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Kirac\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmas\u0131 durumunda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle tahliyesine karar verilebilmesi i\u00e7in kiraya verenin konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiras\u0131nda kirac\u0131ya en az otuz g\u00fcn s\u00fcre vererek ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesini, aksi takdirde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshedece\u011fini yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak bildirmesi ve tan\u0131nan bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde de akde ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir.
16. Konut ve \u00e7at\u0131l\u0131 i\u015fyeri kiralar\u0131nda, akde ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k h\u00e2linde, kirac\u0131ya ihtar ke\u015fide edilmeden kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshedilece\u011fi durumlar BK\u2019n\u0131n 256. maddesinde \u201ca\u00e7\u0131ktan a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa fena kullan\u0131m\u201d olarak nitelendirilmi\u015fti. TBK\u2019n\u0131n 316\/3. maddesinde ise \u201ckirac\u0131n\u0131n kiralanana kasten a\u011f\u0131r bir zarar vermesi, kirac\u0131ya verilecek s\u00fcrenin yarars\u0131z olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 veya kirac\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kiraya veren veya ayn\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda oturan ki\u015filer ile kom\u015fular bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez olmas\u0131\u201d olarak belirtilmi\u015ftir (Kan\u0131k, Hikmet: Yarg\u0131tay Uygulamas\u0131nda Kira Hukuk Davalar\u0131, Ankara 2021, s. 1142). G\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fi \u00fczere kirac\u0131n\u0131n davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kiraya veren veya ayn\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda oturan ki\u015filer ile kom\u015fular bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde kiraya veren, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini yapaca\u011f\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir bildirimle hemen feshedebilecektir.
17. Yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; davac\u0131lar\u0131n murisi ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda 4165 Sok. No: 85\/A adresinde bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak 20.04.2008 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihli ve iki y\u0131l s\u00fcreli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 vekili, ayn\u0131 adreste yine m\u00fcvekkiline ait olan 85\/B kap\u0131 numaral\u0131 i\u015fyeri bo\u015fald\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n bu i\u015fyerine ge\u00e7mek istedi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin izin vermedi\u011fini, buna ra\u011fmen daval\u0131n\u0131n 85\/B kap\u0131 numaral\u0131 i\u015fyerine izinsiz ve habersiz olarak ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin bu duruma itiraz etti\u011fini ancak daval\u0131 ve e\u015finin fiili ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc sald\u0131r\u0131lar\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek kiralanan\u0131n tahliyesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n iddialar\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu, aksine davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline y\u00f6nelik hakaret, tehdit ve iftira su\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 i\u015fledi\u011fini, davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda iftira su\u00e7undan \u015fik\u00e2yet\u00e7i olundu\u011funu ve soru\u015fturman\u0131n devam etti\u011fini, i\u015fyerinin m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131ndan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.
18. Taraf beyanlar\u0131 ve dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131, daval\u0131 hakk\u0131nda hakaret ve basit yaralama su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015f, \u0130zmir 10. Sulh Ceza Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda, mahkumiyete yeterli ve inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcsnet su\u00e7lardan beraatine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 da davac\u0131 hakk\u0131nda hakaret ve iftira su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunmu\u015f, \u0130zmir 18. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda, davac\u0131n\u0131n hakaret ve iftira su\u00e7lar\u0131ndan mahk\u00fbmiyetine ve h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda, davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n birbirleri hakk\u0131nda \u015fik\u00e2yette bulunduklar\u0131, haklar\u0131nda ceza mahkemelerinde yarg\u0131lamalar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, b\u00f6ylelikle kira ili\u015fkisinin kiraya veren bak\u0131m\u0131ndan \u00e7ekilmez h\u00e2le geldi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla BK\u2019n\u0131n 256\/2. (TBK\u2019n\u0131n 316\/3.) maddesindeki \u015fartlar\u0131n olu\u015ftu\u011fu kabul edilerek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekir.
19. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, mahkemece, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmas\u0131 gerekirken, \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.
20. Bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.
IV. SONU\u00c7:
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
Davac\u0131n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen nedenlerden dolay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun Ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesine g\u00f6re uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131ranlara geri verilmesine,
Ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 440. maddesi gere\u011fince karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 23.12.2021 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, Esas No: 2017\/1770, Karar No: 2021\/1738 Say\u0131l\u0131 Karar\u0131na konu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta;1-) Davac\u0131, daval\u0131 ve e\u015finin fiili ve s\u00f6zl\u00fc sald\u0131r\u0131lar\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisini darp etti\u011fini, hakaret ve k\u00fcf\u00fcr etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek daval\u0131n\u0131n tahliyesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.2-) Daval\u0131 ise, k\u00fcf\u00fcr, hakaret ve sald\u0131r\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu,<\/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-2731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-av-hande-yetik"],"yoast_head":"\n