Did Your Tenant Reach an Agreement With Your Co-Owner Instead of You? Terminating a Lease on Co-Owned Property and the Conditions for a New Contract

In real property held in co-ownership (whether shared ownership or joint ownership) by more than one person, the lease relationship often rests on a more complex legal footing than it appears. In particular, where only one of the co-owners of the property signed the lease agreement and the tenant later wishes to deal directly with another co-owner, many people on the ground assume this is a simple "change of tenant." In fact, however, Court of Cassation case law lays down fairly clear and strict rules on this point. In this article, we examine whether a new lease agreement can be entered into without first terminating the existing one, under what circumstances this is possible, and the risks the co-owners may face.

Summary of the Situation

In real property subject to shared ownership, one of the co-owners signed a written lease agreement with a tenant, and the tenant has been living in the property under that agreement for years. Over time, the other co-owner (the client) learns that the tenant wishes to establish a direct relationship with them, pay the rent to them, and enter into a new contract. The fundamental question that must be answered is this: can a new lease agreement be established between the tenant and the other co-owner before the existing agreement comes to an end? Can the tenant terminate the existing agreement through a unilateral notice and move to a new contract?

The Legal Issue

The crux of the matter is the principle that a lease agreement does not require the lessor to be the owner of the property. Under settled Court of Cassation case law, a person who does not hold title to the property may nonetheless validly act as "lessor" and enter into a valid contract, which is fully binding between that person and the tenant (Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2004). In other words, the agreement signed by one of the co-owners is legally valid and produces effects between the signing co-owner and the tenant, even though the other co-owner is not a party to it.

At this point a second principle comes into play: the principle of pacta sunt servanda (binding force of contracts). A lease agreement can be terminated only through certain legal means, not by the arbitrary decision of one of the parties.

What Does the Court of Cassation Say?

The Court of Cassation's decisions on this issue can be grouped under three main headings:

• A contract does not terminate on its own. A written lease agreement continues to remain valid unless terminated by a court decision or by the mutual will (agreement) of the parties (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2015; Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2014).
• Termination is possible only through three means: a court decision, the parties' mutual intent to terminate, or the physical destruction of the leased property. It is not possible for the lessor (or the tenant) to bring the agreement to an end through a unilateral notice of termination (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2014; Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2013).
• The ownership structure affects the binding force of the contract. Because leasing is considered an "act of significant administration" in shared ownership, a majority of both shares and co-owners is required; a co-owner who is not a party to a contract concluded without such majority may raise an objection of invalidity (Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2011; Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, 2012). In joint ownership, on the other hand, unanimity of all co-owners is required under the Turkish Civil Code; a transaction carried out without unanimity does not bind the other co-owners (Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2017; Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2006).

In addition, Article 310 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides that, in the event of a change of ownership of the property (transfer of title), the new owner automatically becomes a party to the lease agreement. In the scenario at hand, however, there is no transfer of ownership; rather, there is a request to enter into a new agreement with one of the existing co-owners. This distinction is critical: as noted in a recent decision of the Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber (2025), so long as the existing agreement is considered to be "in force and valid," entering into a second agreement for the same property may infringe the rights of the other co-owner.

Points to Watch

• A unilateral notice from the tenant is not sufficient. Even if the tenant states, "I will deal with you from now on," this statement alone does not terminate the existing agreement. Termination requires either the consent of the counterparty (the current lessor co-owner) or a court decision.
• A new agreement can create legal complications. Signing a second agreement without terminating the existing one can result in two valid agreements coming into conflict, a dispute over who is entitled to the rent receivable, and even the tenant being placed in the position of an "unauthorized occupant" (fuzuli şagil) (Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2011).
• A majority of shares and co-owners is required. If a new lease transaction is to be carried out in shared ownership, the consent of the other co-owners, or the majority required by law, must be obtained; otherwise the transaction risks being invalid.
• The correct path is proper termination of the existing agreement. This means either a mutual agreement to terminate between the current lessor co-owner and the tenant, or, if there is just cause, obtaining a court decision for termination/eviction. Entering into a new agreement before these steps are completed may result in an outcome unfavorable to the parties in any subsequent lawsuit.

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

Requests that appear to be a "change of hands" in the lease relationship on co-owned property in fact carry serious legal risks. A new agreement entered into without terminating the existing lease creates uncertainty in the collection of rent receivables and may also be the subject of a claim of invalidity by the other co-owner, or even a claim for ecrimisil (compensation for unauthorized occupation).

If you find yourself in a similar situation:

1. First clarify the legal status of the existing agreement (who signed it, its term, and its termination conditions).
2. Before entering into a new agreement, consider drawing up a written, mutual termination protocol with the current lessor co-owner.
3. If agreement cannot be reached, consider applying to the court for eviction or termination of the agreement.
4. Avoid signing a new agreement without securing the required majority of shares/co-owners, or unanimity, appropriate to the specific type of co-ownership involved.

Because disputes of this kind can produce very different outcomes depending on the property's ownership structure and the content of the existing agreement, it is important to obtain a legal assessment before taking any step.