Abstract:

According to Art.312 of Turkish Code of Obligations, parties to a lease may agree to have it annotated in the land register. After articles 310 and 311 of Turkish Code of Obligations, regulating mandatory legal assignment of the lease contract, came into effect in 2012, this annotation lost its significance.  In spite of this development, it is claimed that this annotation has still some value. According to some writers and expressionary statement of the code, this annotation will eliminate termination right of the owner due to own needs, recontruction or redevelopment based on Art.350 and termination right of the new owner due to own need based on Art.351. Actually, annotation enables the tenant to claim his existing contractual rights against anyone who obtains ownership or any other real right affecting his usage after the annotation. That is why it is logical to claim that annotation eliminates the termination right of the new owner due to own need because this right did not exist in the registered lease agreement. Contrary to this,  annotation should not remove the termination right of the first lessor who asked for the annotation because according to Art. 1009, annotation does not change the contractual rights and obligations among the existing parties of a contract. Accordingly, new owner may enjoy the same contractual rights even if the relevant contract has been annotated since the contract is assigned to him in accordance with Art.310. 

Keywords: