Does a Tenant Who Leaves Early Owe All the Remaining Rent in Turkey?

Short answer

Early departure does not automatically make the tenant liable for every remaining month, but it does not necessarily end payment obligations immediately. Article 325 focuses on the reasonable period needed to let the property on similar terms, subject to the statutory qualifications. A Yargıtay decision also shows why the return date, efforts to relet and deposit accounting must be examined separately.

The anonymised dispute

The parties had a three-year lease. The tenant gave notice of termination and stated that the keys had been left with the building’s security staff on 17.07.2012. The landlord did not dispute that stated return date. The landlord sought payment relying on early-termination provisions and also referred to damage; the tenant alleged an agreed termination and asked for the security deposit to be credited.

After an earlier procedural reversal, the trial court partly accepted the landlord’s claim. Both sides brought the matter back to Yargıtay. The published decision records the parties’ allegations separately from the court’s findings: the tenant’s assertion that termination was agreed was not simply accepted as a universal answer to the payment dispute.

What the court decided

The Civil Chamber 3 applied the distinction between rent up to the return of the keys and liability for a reasonable re-letting period afterwards. It also stated that the landlord must make efforts to relet and avoid increasing the loss. The assessment therefore cannot be based solely on how much time remained in the original lease.

The return date was accepted in the particular circumstances because the landlord had not challenged the date communicated by the tenant. This is not a general rule that leaving keys with any concierge or security guard always constitutes effective return. The recipient’s authority, notification and the parties’ conduct can be material in a different case.

The court also found a problem with the treatment of the deposit. Evidence of the alleged damage needed to be examined, the tenant’s relevant liability determined, and the deposit then credited against the landlord’s established claims. The landlord’s objection to crediting the deposit was not enough to avoid that examination.

The judgment was reversed on the relevant grounds; the landlord’s own appeal objections were rejected. The decision did not finally establish that the tenant owed nothing or must receive the whole deposit. The later result after remand is not established by the published text used here.

How Article 325 applies today

The current provision says that obligations continue for the reasonable period in which the premises could be relet on similar terms. It also provides an earlier end where the tenant finds a solvent replacement, ready to take over, whom the landlord can reasonably be expected to accept. The landlord must deduct saved expenses and benefits obtained, or deliberately avoided, through other use.

These rules do not supply a fixed number of months for every apartment or commercial property. A contractual notice provision, an agreed termination, a justified termination for another reason or a different type of lease may alter the analysis. The case should not be used to disregard those questions.

Practical assessment

The practical lesson is to create a reliable record of return and the subsequent period. A landlord abroad should arrange who can receive keys, inspect the premises and organise re-letting. A departing tenant should seek proof of handover and preserve any replacement-tenant proposal. Neither side benefits from uncertainty about when control of the property was returned.

Keep the lease, early-termination terms and all notices.
Record the actual key return, recipient and acknowledgement.
Preserve advertisements, enquiries, viewing records and any new lease.
Document proposed replacement tenants and the response.
Separate unpaid rent, claimed damage and the deposit in the final account.

In a current dispute, the applicable pre-action mediation requirement should also be checked. The procedural path followed in this older case should not be copied without considering today’s rules. For an initial assessment, describe the lease dates, return arrangements and disputed payment through the contact page.

Decision citation and limits

Yargıtay, Civil Chamber 3, 27.02.2019, E. 2017/13231, K. 2019/1657. The decision was unanimous and stated that the rectification route was closed. That procedural statement does not establish the final outcome after remand. The analysis above distinguishes the court’s reasoning from practical editorial observations.

Sources and currency

Sources checked on 17 October 2026. Editorial responsibility: Muhammet Emre Nas. This article provides general information; its application depends on the documents and facts.