{"id":126103,"date":"2025-06-25T11:49:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T08:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/uncategorized-tr\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/"},"modified":"2025-06-25T11:49:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T08:49:00","slug":"hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/","title":{"rendered":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>T.C.<\/p>\n<p>Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n<p>Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n<p>2017\/2792 E. , 2021\/267 K.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>MAHKEMES\u0130 :Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/p>\n<p>1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201ckira bedelinin tespiti\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar daval\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.<\/p>\n<p>2. Direnme karar\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n<p>I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n<p>Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:<br \/>\n4. Davac\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilleri ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda imzalanan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re kira d\u00f6neminin 01.02.2011 tarihinde ba\u015flay\u0131p 01.02.2016 tarihinde sona erece\u011fini, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesine g\u00f6re kira bedelinin 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.500,00TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini, sonraki y\u0131llarda kira bedelinin (\u00dcFE+TEFE)\/2 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n ilk \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda kira bedelinde yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise, kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n kira bedeli konusunda ortak mutabakata var\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 5.693,27TL \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 51. Noterli\u011finin 13.01.2014 tarihli ve 532 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile kira bedelinin 8.000,00TL olarak belirlenmesini istediklerini, daval\u0131n\u0131n Beyo\u011flu 60. Noterli\u011finin 10.02.2014 tarihli ve 1221 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile m\u00fcvekkilleri taraf\u0131ndan tek tarafl\u0131 art\u0131\u015f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek m\u00fcvekkillerinin hesab\u0131na \u00f6denen tutar\u0131n uygun oldu\u011funu beyan etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kira bedelinin 17.02.2014 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere ayl\u0131k 8.000,00TL olarak tespitine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015f, 12.02.2015 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile de davay\u0131 br\u00fct 8.000,00TL kira bedeli \u00fczerinden a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek kira bedelinin br\u00fct 9.200,00TL olarak tespitine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:<br \/>\n5. Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca kira art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 her y\u0131l d\u00fczenli olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6dedi\u011fi kira bedelinin 5.693,27TL oldu\u011funu, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun (TBK) 344. maddesi gere\u011fince taraflarca kira bedeli konusunda bir anla\u015fma yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015fsa, kira bedelinin bir \u00f6nceki kira y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcretici fiyat endeksindeki art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7memek ko\u015fuluyla hakkaniyete g\u00f6re belirlenece\u011fini, davac\u0131lar\u0131n talep etti\u011fi kira bedelinin \u00fcretici fiyat endeksindeki art\u0131\u015f oran\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7ti\u011fini savunarak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Mahkeme Karar\u0131:<br \/>\n6. \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 12.02.2015 tarihli ve 2014\/159 E., 2015\/79 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; mahallinde yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesine g\u00f6re, Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131nda da benimsenen y\u00f6nteme g\u00f6re endeks uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n art arda 3 y\u0131l i\u00e7in uygulanabilece\u011fi, bu s\u00fcreden sonra taraflar aras\u0131ndaki kira bedelinde anla\u015fmazl\u0131k olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde kira paras\u0131n\u0131n hak ve nefaset kurallar\u0131na g\u00f6re belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fi, emsal ve rayi\u00e7ler nazara al\u0131narak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n hali haz\u0131r durumu itibariyle bo\u015f olarak yeniden kiraya verilmesi h\u00e2linde ayl\u0131k kira bedelinin 9.000.00-10.000,00TL aral\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bir bedel olaca\u011f\u0131, ancak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n h\u00e2li haz\u0131r bu konumuna etki eden ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan iyile\u015ftirmeler g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mevcut durumu itibariyle ve hak ve nefaset kurallar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda ayl\u0131k kiran\u0131n br\u00fct 8.750,00TL (net 7.000,00TL) olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlendi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 17.02.2014 tarihinden itibaren ayl\u0131k kira bedelinin takdiren br\u00fct 8.750,00TL (net 7.000,00TL) olarak tespitine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:<br \/>\n7. Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n<p>8. Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 6. Hukuk Dairesinin 23.11.2015 tarihli ve 2015\/7190 E., 2015\/10218 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u201c\u2026Davac\u0131 vekili, taraflar aras\u0131nda 01.02.2011 ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7, 01.02.2016 biti\u015f tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulundu\u011funu, ayl\u0131k kira bedelinin net 4.500 TL olup, y\u0131ll\u0131k kira art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n tefe-t\u00fcfe ortalamas\u0131 olarak belirlendi\u011fini, bundan ayr\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmede &#8221;Taraflar, ilk 3 (\u00fc\u00e7) y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda s\u00f6zle\u015fme de belirtilen ko\u015fullar da artt\u0131r\u0131lan kira bedelini kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 mutabakatla b\u00f6lge rayi\u00e7lerine g\u00f6re yeniden belirleyecek ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 mutabakat yapacakt\u0131r, yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise son 2 y\u0131la ait s\u00f6z konusu kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131 bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilir&#8221; d\u00fczenlemesi bulundu\u011funu, taraflar\u0131n ayl\u0131k bedel konusunda anla\u015fmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek ayl\u0131k kiran\u0131n hakkaniyete uygun bi\u00e7imde 17.02.2014 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere ayl\u0131k 8.000 TL olarak belirlenmesini istemi\u015f, 12.02.2015 tarihli beyan dilek\u00e7esi ile davay\u0131 br\u00fct 8.000 TL kira bedeli \u00fczerinden a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, 22.12.2014 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporu do\u011frultusunda br\u00fct kira bedelinin ayl\u0131k 9.200 TL olarak belirlenmesi i\u00e7in davalar\u0131n\u0131 \u0131slah ettiklerini belirtmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili TBK 344 gere\u011fi davac\u0131n\u0131n talebinin kabul edilemeyece\u011fini, endekse g\u00f6re art\u0131\u015f yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, davaya konu yerde kiralar\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n istedi\u011fi kadar olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan ke\u015fifler sonucunda ilk bilirki\u015fi kurulu kiralanan\u0131n bo\u015f olarak kiraya verilmesi halinde ayl\u0131k br\u00fct 8.750 TL, hak ve nesafet indirimi ile ayl\u0131k br\u00fct 8.125 TL, ikinci bilirki\u015fi kurulu, ayl\u0131k br\u00fct kiran\u0131n 9.200 TL, hak ve nesafet indirimi yap\u0131l\u0131rsa ayl\u0131k br\u00fct 8.750 TL olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmi\u015f, mahkemece ikinci bilirki\u015fi raporuna uyularak 17.02.2014 tarihinden itibaren ayl\u0131k br\u00fct kira 8.750 TL olarak belirlenmi\u015f ise de; kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun kapal\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilerek dava dilek\u00e7esinde g\u00f6sterilen ve 12.02.2015 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulan ayl\u0131k br\u00fct 8.000 TL kira bedeli \u00fczerinden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi do\u011fru de\u011fildir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n<p>Direnme Karar\u0131:<br \/>\n9. \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesinin 29.03.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/918 E., 2016\/242 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun tamamen kapal\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, TBK\u2019n\u0131n kira tespitine ili\u015fkin 344 ve 345. maddelerinde kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun kapal\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin yasaklay\u0131c\u0131 hi\u00e7bir h\u00fck\u00fcm yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) davan\u0131n \u0131slah\u0131na ili\u015fkin 176. maddesinde taraflardan her birinin, yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu usul i\u015flemlerini k\u0131smen veya tamamen \u0131slah edebilece\u011fi, 180. maddesinde de davan\u0131n tamamen \u0131slah edilebilece\u011fi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011fu, HMK\u2019da kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun kapal\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin yasaklay\u0131c\u0131 hi\u00e7bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kanunlarda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a b\u00f6yle bir yasaklama h\u00fckm\u00fc bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re kanunda olmayan bir h\u00fckme dayan\u0131larak kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun kapal\u0131 oldu\u011fundan bahsedilemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:<br \/>\n10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK<\/p>\n<p>11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda \u0131slah yolunun kapal\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>III. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n<p>12. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle \u201ckira bedelinin tespiti\u201d davalar\u0131n\u0131n hukuksal niteli\u011fi ve kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u00f6zelliklerinin irdelenmesinde yarar vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>13. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131; Anayasa Mahkemesinin, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan m\u00fclga 6570 say\u0131l\u0131 Gayrimenkul Kiralar\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun (6570 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun)\u2019un 2 ve 3. maddelerinin iptaline ili\u015fkin karar\u0131n\u0131n 26.09.1963 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi ile birlikte yasada do\u011fan bo\u015flu\u011fun doldurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile getirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>14. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131n\u0131n konusunu 6570 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun kapsam\u0131na giren ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar olu\u015fturur ve bu dava 6570 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerler ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusudur.<\/p>\n<p>15. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131 kiralayan (kiraya veren) taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131labilece\u011fi gibi kirac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan da a\u00e7\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n<p>16. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm bir kira y\u0131l\u0131na ait kira paras\u0131n\u0131n ne olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesine ili\u015fkindir. Bu belirleme a\u00e7\u0131k, net ve tam olmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>17. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131n\u0131n en \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 \u00f6zelli\u011fi kamu d\u00fczeni ile ilgili olmalar\u0131d\u0131r. Bununla ilgili y\u00f6ntemleri taraflar\u0131n belirleyemeyece\u011fi yarg\u0131sal uygulamada kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>18. H\u00e2kim, bu davalarda kanun, i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme kararlar\u0131 ve Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile belli edilen y\u00f6ntemlere uygun olarak kira bedelinin tespiti yoluna gitmek zorundad\u0131r. Kira paras\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde belirlenen bu ilke d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131 e\u015fit uygulama ilkesini bozdu\u011fu gibi kamu d\u00fczeni ile ilgili olan bu davan\u0131n yap\u0131s\u0131na da uygun d\u00fc\u015fmeyecektir.<\/p>\n<p>19. \u0130\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulunun 12.11.1979 tarihli ve 1979\/1 E., 1979\/3 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi gibi, Anayasa Mahkemesince 26.03.1963 tarihinde verilen karar ile 6570 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 2 ve 3. maddelerinin iptaline karar verilmi\u015f ve bu karar\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen maddeleri yerine yeni bir yasa \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmadan 26.09.1963 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesi \u00fczerine bir yasa bo\u015flu\u011fu olu\u015fmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n<p>20. Uygulamada birli\u011fi sa\u011flamak i\u00e7in 18.11.1964 tarihli ve 2\/4 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131 ile, kanunda bo\u015fluk bulundu\u011fu temelinden hareketle yeni d\u00f6nemde akdin kira bedeline ili\u015fkin h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn yenilenmeyerek kiras\u0131 belli olmayan bir akit haline geldi\u011fi benimsenmi\u015f ve kira bedelinin s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bo\u015flu\u011fun hakim taraf\u0131ndan doldurulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>21. Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere tespit davalar\u0131, genel olarak bir hukuki ili\u015fkinin mevcut olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin davalard\u0131r. Bu dava ile hukuki ili\u015fki hakk\u0131ndaki ku\u015fku ve teredd\u00fctler giderilir. Tespit davalar\u0131 haklar\u0131n istikrar\u0131n\u0131 temin etmekle toplumsal bir yarar sa\u011flar. Tespit davas\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131 da hukuki belirsizli\u011fi gidermek, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle hukuki ili\u015fkileri taraflar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan belirli hale getirmekten ve bu yolla bar\u0131\u015f\u0131 sa\u011flamaktan ibarettir.<\/p>\n<p>22. Buna g\u00f6re, kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda verilen kira tespiti kararlar\u0131, di\u011fer tespit davalar\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi bir hukuki ili\u015fkiyi tespit etmez. Amac\u0131 sadece kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yeni d\u00f6nemde belli olmayan kira bedeli unsurunu belirli bir h\u00e2le getirmekten ibarettir. Ger\u00e7ekten de taraflar anla\u015famam\u0131\u015flarsa, kiran\u0131n tespitinde hukuki sonu\u00e7 ancak h\u00e2kimin karar\u0131 ile do\u011far. Ger\u00e7i, yeni d\u00f6nemde kiran\u0131n belli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in mutlaka bir mahkeme karar\u0131 almas\u0131 \u015fart de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc taraflar anla\u015f\u0131rlarsa mahkeme karar\u0131na gerek kalmadan hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011far. Taraflar\u0131n ancak anla\u015famamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu hukuki sonucun do\u011fmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7malar\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n<p>23. B\u00f6ylece kira tespiti kararlar\u0131 eda davalar\u0131 sonunda verilen mahkumiyet kararlar\u0131na de\u011fil, in\u015fai davalar sonunda verilen kararlara yak\u0131n bir nitelik g\u00f6stermektedirler. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kira bedelinin tespitine ili\u015fkin olarak a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan davada, tespit davas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu gibi bir hukuki ili\u015fkiye dair karar verilmesi yerine, var olan hukuki ili\u015fkiye ili\u015fkin yeni bir hukuki durum ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 veya var olan bir hukuki durumun de\u011fi\u015fmesi s\u00f6z konusu olmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim ayn\u0131 hususlara Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 26.02.2014 tarihli ve 2013\/3-633 E., 2014\/154 K. ve 24.02.2016 tarihli ve 2014\/3-348 E., 2016\/173 K. say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131nda da de\u011finilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>24. Kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131 sadece ilgili kira d\u00f6neminde ge\u00e7erli olacak kira bedelinin tespitidir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle kira bedelinin tespiti davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir konusu vard\u0131r. Kira tespit davas\u0131 sonucunda h\u00e2kim, bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre zarf\u0131nda uygulanacak olan kira bedelini belirler. B\u00f6ylelikle, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde yer alan kira bedeli, h\u00e2kim karar\u0131 ile de\u011fi\u015ftirilmi\u015f olur ve kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi mahkeme karar\u0131 ile yeniden \u015fekillenmi\u015ftir (\u00d6zyak\u0131\u015f\u0131r, \u00d6.: Konut ve \u00c7at\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015fyeri Kira S\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde Kira Bedeli, Ankara 2019, s. 204).<\/p>\n<p>25. Mahkemece belirlenen kira bedelinin hangi andan itibaren ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu talep edilmedik\u00e7e, h\u00fck\u00fcmde g\u00f6sterilmez. Sadece, talepte bulunulmu\u015f olmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131yla, belirlenen kira bedelinin hangi andan itibaren ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu h\u00fck\u00fcmde g\u00f6sterilir (Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 21.11.1966 tarihli ve 1966\/19 E., 1966\/10 K.). Fakat, dava sonucunda belirlenen bedel, bazen, belirlenmesi talep edilen de\u011fil bir sonraki kira y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in etki do\u011furabilmektedir. Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n, bedelin belirlenmesinin talep edildi\u011fi kira y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in etki do\u011furmas\u0131 arzu ediliyorsa kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki h\u00fck\u00fcmlere dikkat edilerek talepte bulunulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (\u00d6zyak\u0131\u015f\u0131r, s. 223).<\/p>\n<p>26. Bu a\u015famada \u201ck\u0131smi dava\u201d kavram\u0131 \u00fczerinde k\u0131saca durmak gerekir. Alaca\u011f\u0131n yaln\u0131zca bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davaya k\u0131smi dava denir. Bir davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava olarak nitelendirilebilmesi i\u00e7in, alaca\u011f\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn ayn\u0131 hukuki ili\u015fkiden do\u011fmu\u015f olmas\u0131 ve alaca\u011f\u0131n \u015fimdilik belirli bir kesiminin dava edilmesi gerekir. Di\u011fer bir s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle, bir alacak hakk\u0131nda daha fazla bir miktar i\u00e7in tam dava a\u00e7ma imk\u00e2n\u0131 bulunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, alaca\u011f\u0131n bir kesimi i\u00e7in a\u00e7\u0131lan davaya, k\u0131smi dava denir. K\u0131smi dava a\u00e7\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in talep konusunun b\u00f6l\u00fcnebilir olmas\u0131 gerekli olup, a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava oldu\u011funun dava dilek\u00e7esinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a yaz\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmez. Dava dilek\u00e7esindeki a\u00e7\u0131klamalardan davac\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n daha fazla oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131yor ve istem b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde &#8220;fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131n\u0131 sakl\u0131 tutmas\u0131\u201d ya da \u201calaca\u011f\u0131n \u015fimdilik \u015fu kadar\u0131n\u0131 dava ediyorum\u201d \u015feklinde bir ifadeye yer verilmi\u015f ise, bu husus, davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava olarak kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in yeterli say\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (Pekcan\u0131tez, H.: Medeni Usul Hukuku, C. II, 15. bask\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2017, s. 1000).<\/p>\n<p>27. 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nda (HUMK) a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u0131smi dava d\u00fczenlenmedi\u011fi h\u00e2lde, s\u00f6z konusu Kanun&#8217;un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte oldu\u011fu d\u00f6nemde de k\u0131smi dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn bulunmaktayd\u0131. K\u0131smi dava, HMK&#8217;n\u0131n 109. maddesinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. An\u0131lan maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda; talep konusunun niteli\u011fi itibar\u0131yla b\u00f6l\u00fcnebilir oldu\u011fu durumlarda, sadece bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n da dava yoluyla ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilece\u011fi h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130kinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda ise, talep konusunun miktar\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131z veya a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirli ise k\u0131smi dava a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015fti. Ancak 109. maddenin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 01.04.2015 tarihli ve 6444 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun&#8217;un 4. maddesi ile y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckten kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan art\u0131k talep konusunun taraflar aras\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131z veya belirli olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde de k\u0131smi dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn h\u00e2le gelmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>28. Yukar\u0131da yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olaya gelince; davac\u0131lar vekili, daval\u0131 ile aralar\u0131nda 01.02.2011 tarihinde ba\u015flay\u0131p 01.02.2016 tarihinde sona erecek kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesine g\u00f6re kira bedelinin 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.500,00TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini, sonraki y\u0131llarda kira bedelinin (\u00dcFE+TEFE)\/2 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n ilk \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda kira bedelinde yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise, kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n kira bedeli konusunda ortak mutabakata var\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 5.693,27TL \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kira bedelinin 17.02.2014 tarihinden itibaren ge\u00e7erli olmak \u00fczere ayl\u0131k 8.000,00TL olarak tespitine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015f, 12.02.2015 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ile de davay\u0131 br\u00fct 8.000,00TL kira bedeli \u00fczerinden a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirterek kira bedelinin br\u00fct 9.200,00TL olarak tespitine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Daha \u00f6nce de belirtildi\u011fi gibi kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131 kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc bir dava olup in\u015fai davalar sonunda verilen kararlara yak\u0131n bir niteliktedir. Bu davalarda sadece ilgili kira d\u00f6neminde ge\u00e7erli olacak kira bedelinin tespiti istenir ve kira bedelinin tespiti davas\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir konusu vard\u0131r. Dava sonucunda h\u00e2kim, ileriye y\u00f6nelik olarak bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre zarf\u0131nda uygulanacak olan kira bedelini belirler ve kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde yer alan kira bedeli, h\u00e2kim karar\u0131 ile de\u011fi\u015ftirilmi\u015f olur. Davan\u0131n bu niteli\u011fi gere\u011fince kira bedelinin tespitine ili\u015fkin talep b\u00f6l\u00fcnemez ve kira bedeli davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bir seferde a\u00e7\u0131k ve net olarak istenilmesi gerekir. Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131nda fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar sakl\u0131 tutulamaz ve sakl\u0131 tutulan bu hakla ilgili olarak \u0131slah talebinde bulunulamaz.<\/p>\n<p>29. \u00d6te yandan kira bedelinin tespitine ili\u015fkin talep dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan, \u0131slahla bedelin art\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda ise daha sonraki bir d\u00f6nemi kapsayacak \u015fekilde talepte bulunulmu\u015f olur ve bu da kira bedelinin tespiti davalar\u0131n\u0131n niteli\u011fine ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>30. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmak gerekirken \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>31. Bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>IV. SONU\u00c7 :<\/p>\n<p>A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;<\/p>\n<p>Daval\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\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&#8217;nun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,<br \/>\n\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,<\/p>\n<p>Ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 440\/III-2. maddesi gere\u011fince karar d\u00fczeltme yolu kapal\u0131 olmak \u00fczere 16.03.2021 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile kesin olarak karar verildi.<\/p>\n<p>\u200bYarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 16.03.2021 tarihli, 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n<p>Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2017\/2792 E. , 2021\/267 K. &#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221; MAHKEMES\u0130 :Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201ckira bedelinin tespiti\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar daval\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 daval\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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilleri ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda imzalanan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re kira d\u00f6neminin 01.02.2011 tarihinde ba\u015flay\u0131p 01.02.2016 tarihinde sona erece\u011fini, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesine g\u00f6re kira bedelinin 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.500,00TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini, sonraki y\u0131llarda kira bedelinin (\u00dcFE+TEFE)\/2 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n ilk \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda kira bedelinde yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise, kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n kira bedeli konusunda ortak mutabakata var\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 5.693,27TL \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 51. Noterli\u011finin 13.01.2014 tarihli ve 532 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile kira bedelinin 8.000,00TL olarak belirlenmesini istediklerini, daval\u0131n\u0131n Beyo\u011flu 60. Noterli\u011finin 10.02.2014 tarihli ve 1221 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile m\u00fcvekkilleri taraf\u0131ndan tek &hellip;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.6 (Yoast SEO v27.1.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#039;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#039;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2017\/2792 E. , 2021\/267 K. &#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221; MAHKEMES\u0130 :Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201ckira bedelinin tespiti\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar daval\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 daval\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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilleri ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda imzalanan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re kira d\u00f6neminin 01.02.2011 tarihinde ba\u015flay\u0131p 01.02.2016 tarihinde sona erece\u011fini, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesine g\u00f6re kira bedelinin 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.500,00TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini, sonraki y\u0131llarda kira bedelinin (\u00dcFE+TEFE)\/2 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n ilk \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda kira bedelinde yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise, kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n kira bedeli konusunda ortak mutabakata var\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 5.693,27TL \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 51. Noterli\u011finin 13.01.2014 tarihli ve 532 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile kira bedelinin 8.000,00TL olarak belirlenmesini istediklerini, daval\u0131n\u0131n Beyo\u011flu 60. Noterli\u011finin 10.02.2014 tarihli ve 1221 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile m\u00fcvekkilleri taraf\u0131ndan tek &hellip;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Hukuki Haber.net\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043c\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Hukuki Haber.net\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822\"},\"headline\":\"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\"},\"wordCount\":3031,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Hukuki Haberler\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\",\"name\":\"Hukuk Genel Kurulu'nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/\",\"name\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"description\":\"Avukat Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l Antalya Barosu\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg\",\"width\":1080,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822\",\"name\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.hukukihaber.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/author\/hukukihabernet\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu'nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu'nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131","og_description":"T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2017\/2792 E. , 2021\/267 K. &#8220;\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni&#8221; MAHKEMES\u0130 :Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201ckira bedelinin tespiti\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, \u0130stanbul Anadolu 14. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar daval\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 daval\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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilleri ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda imzalanan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re kira d\u00f6neminin 01.02.2011 tarihinde ba\u015flay\u0131p 01.02.2016 tarihinde sona erece\u011fini, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesine g\u00f6re kira bedelinin 2011 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 4.500,00TL olarak belirlendi\u011fini, sonraki y\u0131llarda kira bedelinin (\u00dcFE+TEFE)\/2 oran\u0131nda art\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 3. maddesinin son f\u0131kras\u0131nda, taraflar\u0131n ilk \u00fc\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n sonunda kira bedelinde yap\u0131lacak olan art\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin mutabakata varamazlar ise, kira bedeli art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n bilirki\u015fi marifeti ile tespit ettirilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n kira bedeli konusunda ortak mutabakata var\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 2014 y\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7in 5.693,27TL \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 51. Noterli\u011finin 13.01.2014 tarihli ve 532 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile kira bedelinin 8.000,00TL olarak belirlenmesini istediklerini, daval\u0131n\u0131n Beyo\u011flu 60. Noterli\u011finin 10.02.2014 tarihli ve 1221 yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile m\u00fcvekkilleri taraf\u0131ndan tek &hellip;","og_url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/","og_site_name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","article_published_time":"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00","author":"Hukuki Haber.net","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043c":"Hukuki Haber.net","\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"15 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/"},"author":{"name":"Hukuki Haber.net","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822"},"headline":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131","datePublished":"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/"},"wordCount":3031,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Hukuki Haberler"],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/","url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/","name":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu'nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-25T08:49:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/hukuk-genel-kurulunun-2017-2792-e-2021-267-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hukuk Genel Kurulu&#8217;nun 2017\/2792 E., 2021\/267 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/","name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","description":"Avukat Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l Antalya Barosu","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#organization","name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg","width":1080,"height":1080,"caption":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822","name":"Hukuki Haber.net","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Hukuki Haber.net"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.hukukihaber.net"],"url":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/author\/hukukihabernet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}