How Witness Testimony Wins an Eviction Case Based on Housing Need

"Eviction for need" lawsuits, filed under Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), are among the most common and most heavily litigated types of case in lease law. The key to winning these cases is being able to convince the court, in a persuasive manner, that the need is "genuine, sincere, and necessary." This is exactly where witness testimony comes into play. So when is a witness statement considered strong evidence, and when does it remain weak and abstract? In this article, in light of the Court of Cassation's (Yargıtay) settled principles, we examine the evidentiary value of witness testimony and the critical details that determine the outcome of the case.

Summary of the Situation

In an eviction lawsuit filed on the grounds of housing need on behalf of a family member in need, it is claimed that the person in need currently lives in rented accommodation, spends a significant portion of their income on rent, and wants to move to a location close to their workplace. The defendant, for their part, argues that the real purpose is a rent increase and that they were given a verbal "assurance of continued occupancy." In lawsuits of this type, the most important factor shaping the court's decision is how concretely and consistently the witnesses can corroborate these claims.

The Legal Issue

In an eviction lawsuit based on housing need, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. However, Court of Cassation case law accepts that once certain facts are established, a strong presumption arises in favor of the sincerity of the need. The question is: what are the elements that strengthen or weaken this presumption, and how should witness testimony prove these elements?

What Does the Court of Cassation Say?

The Presumption of Living in Rented Accommodation: The Strongest Means of Proof

According to the Court of Cassation's settled case law, the fact that the person in need is currently living elsewhere in rented accommodation and has no other property registered in their name is one of the strongest presumptions regarding the existence of the need:

• Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2013/14490, K. 2013/14951, dated 2013): It was emphasized that the person in need living in rented accommodation is sufficient in itself to establish the existence of the need, and that no additional condition such as "being under threat of eviction" is required.
• Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2014/3336, K. 2014/4259, dated 2014): Living in rented accommodation alone constitutes a presumption of the existence of the need.

At this point, the witness must not merely say "the need exists"; they must describe, in concrete terms, where the person in need lives, how much rent they pay, and in whose name the property is registered. Abstract statements are insufficient to convince the court.

Economic Necessity: The Balance Between Income and Expenses

Another strong means of proof is the imbalance between the income level of the person in need and the rent they pay. Regional Court of Appeal decisions (e.g., Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 35th Civil Chamber, 2025) accept that this kind of income-rent imbalance strongly supports the necessity of the need. The witness should be able to state, not through specific figures but based on their own observation, that they have personally seen how the burden of rent is straining the family.

Necessity of Location and the Right to Choose

Against the defense frequently raised by defendants — "you have an alternative property, move there instead" — the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2007/531, K. 2008/212, dated 2008) has established an important principle: the landlord has the right, within the scope of the ownership right, to choose which property to live in. Where witness testimony substantiates that the alternative property is distant, occupied (by another tenant), or unsuitable, the defendant's defense loses its effect.

A Claim of Rent Increase Is Not Sufficient on Its Own

One of the defenses most frequently relied on by defendants is the claim that "the real aim is a rent increase." However, the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2016/3380, K. 2016/3343, dated 2016) is clear on this point: demanding a rent increase in line with prevailing conditions is the landlord's legal right, and this alone does not mean that the claim of need is insincere. The same decision also emphasizes that witness statements based on hearsay (that is, statements of the "I heard that..." type) cannot form the basis of a judgment.

The Court's Duty to Compare

As stated in another decision of the Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2011/10211, K. 2011/14498, dated 2011), the court may, where necessary, make a comparison between properties in order to assess the sincerity of the need. For this reason, why an alternative property is unsuitable (due to distance, occupancy, distance from the workplace, etc.) must be set out in detail through witness testimony.

Points to Watch

• Concreteness is essential. Rather than saying "the need exists," the witness should be asked to describe concrete facts they have personally seen or know (the current lease agreement, the location of the workplace, the size of the family).
• Avoid hearsay statements. Statements of the "they told me so" type are not taken into account by the court.
• Consistency with documentary evidence is essential. Witness testimony must not conflict with documents such as the lease agreement, land registry records, or a social investigation report.
• Prepare questions targeting the opposing party's claims. Whether claims such as "an assurance was given" or "the aim is a rent increase" are based on a concrete written document should be asked directly.
• Do not overlook technical details such as distance and transportation. Technical factors such as the distance between the workplace and the residence are important arguments that strengthen the reasonableness of the need.

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

The path to winning an eviction lawsuit based on housing need runs not through abstract claims but through concrete and consistent witness testimony. Before filing suit, you need to identify witnesses who can demonstrate the current residential situation of the person in need, the balance between their income and rent, and why alternative properties are unsuitable. If you are the opposing party, identifying hearsay-based or inconsistent points in the plaintiff's witness statements can change the outcome of the case. Planning the evidence-gathering and witness-preparation process together with a lease-law attorney plays a critical role in avoiding wasted time and a possible dismissal in cases of this type.