

Can a foreign buyer evict an existing tenant after purchasing an occupied apartment in Turkey? Learn about existing leases, new-owner necessity, notice deadlines, mediation and eviction proceedings in 2026.
Yes, a foreign property owner can potentially evict an existing tenant after purchasing an occupied property in Turkey, but buying the property does not automatically terminate the existing lease. The new owner generally takes over the landlord’s position under the existing rental relationship and must rely on a legally recognized ground for eviction.
This is particularly important for foreigners buying occupied apartments, villas or commercial premises in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin, Bursa and throughout Turkey. A buyer who intends to live in the property should investigate the existing tenancy before completing the purchase rather than assuming that the tenant can be required to leave immediately after the title transfer.
One of the most important routes available to a new owner is eviction based on a genuine need to use the property personally or for certain close family members. However, strict notice and litigation deadlines apply, and a procedural mistake can significantly delay recovery of possession.
No.
Under the Turkish Code of Obligations, when ownership of rented property changes after the lease has been established, the new owner generally becomes a party to the existing lease.
This means that the purchaser normally acquires not only the property but also the landlord’s position under the rental relationship.
Accordingly, the new foreign owner cannot simply tell the tenant:
“I bought the apartment, so you must leave immediately.”
The tenant’s existing rights must be respected unless a valid ground for termination or eviction exists.
No.
A foreign owner does not generally receive weaker or stronger eviction rights merely because of nationality.
The important issues are ownership, the rental relationship, the legal ground relied upon and compliance with the required procedure.
Therefore, a foreign purchaser who genuinely needs the apartment as a residence may potentially use the same new-owner necessity framework that applies to other property owners.
Potentially, yes.
Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations provides a specific route for a person who acquires rented property and has a genuine and necessary need to use it as a residence or workplace.
The qualifying need may concern the new owner personally or, within the statutory framework, the owner’s spouse, descendants, ascendants or another person whom the owner is legally required to support.
The requirement is not satisfied merely because the purchaser would prefer the property to be vacant.
The need should be genuine, sincere and necessary.
This is one of the most important rules foreign buyers should understand.
A new owner relying on acquisition-based necessity must notify the tenant in writing within one month after acquiring the property.
After giving the required notice, the owner can pursue termination through a lawsuit after six months from the acquisition date, subject to the statutory requirements.
The one-month notice period is therefore critical.
A foreign purchaser who intends to occupy the apartment should not wait several months after completing the acquisition before obtaining legal advice.
No.
The one-month period concerns the new owner’s written notification.
It does not mean that the tenant automatically has only one month to vacate the property.
This distinction frequently causes confusion.
The new owner gives the required written notice within one month of acquisition and, under the acquisition-based route, may bring the eviction claim after six months.
Generally, the acquisition date is tied to the legally effective acquisition of ownership rather than merely the date on which the buyer signs a reservation form or transfers a deposit.
Foreign buyers should therefore identify the actual acquisition date carefully when calculating the Article 351 deadlines.
A mistake concerning this date can create serious procedural consequences.
Yes.
The new owner may also rely on the termination period of the existing lease and pursue the necessity-based claim through the alternative route recognized by Article 351.
Depending on the timing of the purchase and the existing lease, this route may sometimes be strategically preferable to the six-month route.
The lease should therefore be reviewed before deciding which deadline applies.
A buyer should not automatically assume that “six months after purchase” is the only possible date for litigation.
That can support a necessity-based claim, but the need still must be genuine.
For example, a foreign purchaser may buy an occupied apartment in Istanbul because the purchaser intends to relocate permanently to Turkey and use the apartment as the primary residence.
Evidence of relocation plans, existing housing circumstances and the reason that the purchased property is needed may become relevant if the tenant disputes the claim.
The court examines the reality of the need rather than simply accepting the owner’s statement.
The claimed need should not be artificial, speculative or created merely as a mechanism for removing the tenant.
For example, an owner who already has another suitable vacant residence may face questions about why the occupied apartment is genuinely necessary.
That does not mean that ownership of another property automatically defeats the case. The circumstances must be assessed individually.
Location, family requirements, employment, health, accessibility and suitability of alternative properties may all become relevant.
Potentially, yes.
The statutory necessity framework extends beyond the owner’s own personal use.
A genuine housing need of a qualifying family member can potentially support termination.
For example, a foreign owner whose adult child is relocating to Ankara for long-term employment may potentially rely on that child’s genuine residential need, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.
The family relationship and necessity should be capable of proof.
Potentially.
The statutory framework also recognizes necessity concerning ascendants.
Again, however, the claim should reflect a real need rather than a pretext for obtaining a vacant apartment.
Not simply on that basis.
A purchaser cannot normally use acquisition itself as an automatic mechanism for terminating the existing tenancy merely because the rent is below current market levels.
This is a particularly important issue in high-value areas of Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and other major cities where older rental contracts may be substantially below current market rent.
If the real purpose is merely to remove the tenant and obtain a new tenant at a higher price, presenting the case as a false personal-necessity claim can create significant legal problems.
The ownership change does not itself erase the existing rental agreement or create an unrestricted right to set a new rental price.
The new owner generally steps into the existing landlord’s contractual position.
Rent adjustment must therefore be considered under the existing lease and the applicable rental rules.
Buying an occupied property at a discount because its rent is low does not automatically permit the purchaser to reset the rent to current market value on the transfer date.
The foreign buyer should distinguish between the seller’s promise and the tenant’s legal obligations.
A seller may tell the purchaser:
“Do not worry. The tenant will leave immediately after the sale.”
That statement does not necessarily bind the tenant.
Before relying on it, the purchaser should investigate whether the tenant has actually agreed to leave and whether there is legally effective documentation supporting that obligation.
Otherwise, the buyer may complete the purchase and discover that the tenant intends to remain.
This can create an important contractual issue between buyer and seller.
If the seller expressly undertook to deliver the property vacant but transfers an occupied property instead, the buyer may have contractual claims against the seller depending on the agreement.
However, the seller’s breach does not automatically eliminate the tenant’s rights under the separate rental relationship.
The buyer may therefore face two distinct legal questions: eviction of the tenant and liability of the seller for failing to provide vacant possession as promised.
The buyer should obtain and review it before purchasing.
Important provisions include the commencement date, duration, rent, deposit, renewal terms and any additional agreements.
The buyer should also determine whether there is a separate document concerning future surrender of possession.
Purchasing first and requesting the rental documentation afterward is unnecessarily risky.
The absence of a written contract does not automatically mean that no tenancy exists.
Rental relationships can create rights and obligations even where the parties did not execute a conventional written lease.
Payment records, communications, duration of occupation and other evidence may establish the nature of the relationship.
A foreign buyer should therefore not assume that an occupant without a written contract can automatically be removed as an unlawful occupier.
Non-payment can create a separate eviction route.
The new owner should ensure that the tenant has been properly informed about the ownership change and payment arrangements and should document any unpaid rent carefully.
The legal procedures for non-payment differ from an eviction claim based on the new owner’s personal necessity.
A landlord may have more than one potential ground, but each route has its own requirements.
Serious breach of contractual obligations may also create separate remedies.
For example, unauthorized use, prohibited transfer of the rental relationship or serious damage to the property can raise issues independent of the owner’s personal need.
Current judicial materials continue to apply the Turkish Code of Obligations rules governing breaches of rental obligations and, where applicable, requirements to provide the tenant an opportunity to remedy the violation.
The correct ground should therefore be identified before beginning proceedings.
For most rental disputes, yes.
Since September 1, 2023, disputes arising from rental relationships have generally been brought within mandatory pre-litigation mediation, subject to the statutory exception for specified eviction proceedings conducted through enforcement without a prior judgment. The Ministry of Justice continues to describe rental and eviction disputes as part of this mandatory mediation framework.
Accordingly, a foreign owner pursuing a conventional eviction lawsuit should generally plan for the mediation stage before commencing court proceedings.
Yes.
In practice, settlement can sometimes be faster and less expensive than contested litigation.
The Ministry of Justice has published an example involving a new owner who purchased an occupied workplace for personal use and reached a mediated settlement with the tenant concerning updated rent and a future evacuation date.
A negotiated solution can therefore be commercially sensible, particularly where the owner does not require immediate possession.
Any settlement should be drafted carefully so that the parties understand the payment obligations, move-out date, deposit, utilities and condition in which the property will be returned.
There is no reliable universal duration.
The timeline can depend on mediation, court workload, evidence, disputed facts, appeals and enforcement after judgment.
Foreign purchasers should therefore be cautious about buying occupied property where possession is urgently required by a specific date.
A seller’s statement that “the tenant can be removed in two months” should not be accepted without independent legal assessment.
No lawful eviction strategy should be based on self-help measures such as changing locks while the tenant remains legally entitled to possession.
Similarly, cutting electricity, water or other essential services to force departure can expose the owner to additional disputes.
If the tenant does not leave voluntarily, the owner should use the legally applicable eviction procedure.
Ownership does not mean unrestricted access to an occupied rented home.
The tenant has lawful possession and privacy interests while the rental relationship continues.
Property inspections and access should therefore be handled within the contractual and legal framework rather than by unilateral entry.
Because the new owner generally enters the landlord’s position, the treatment of the deposit should be examined during the acquisition.
The buyer should obtain documentation showing the amount of the deposit, how it was paid and where it is held.
This is often overlooked during property due diligence.
When the tenancy eventually ends, a dispute may arise if the seller received the deposit but failed to account for it during the sale.
Where practical and legally appropriate, confirming key facts can be extremely useful.
The buyer should not rely exclusively on information supplied by the seller or real-estate agent.
Before acquisition, important questions include whether the tenant recognizes the lease shown by the seller, how much rent is actually being paid, whether there is a deposit, whether there are pending disputes and whether the tenant has agreed to leave.
These checks can reveal discrepancies before the purchase price is paid.
The buyer should examine the lease and its amendments, payment history, deposit, current rent, commencement date, contractual duration, any surrender agreement, existing litigation and whether the seller has made additional commitments to the tenant.
The purchase contract should also state clearly whether the buyer is acquiring the property subject to the tenancy or whether the seller promises vacant possession.
If the purchaser intends to rely on personal necessity, the acquisition timeline and notice strategy should be planned before closing.
A foreign buyer purchases an occupied apartment in Istanbul intending to use it as the family’s permanent home.
The existing tenant refuses to leave.
The new owner cannot evict the tenant merely by showing the new title. Instead, the owner should evaluate the Article 351 acquisition-based necessity route, including the one-month written-notice requirement and the six-month litigation framework.
Evidence demonstrating the genuine residential need should also be preserved.
A foreign purchaser acquires an occupied apartment in Ankara but waits four months before requesting eviction based on the acquisition.
The purchaser may have lost the opportunity to rely on the specific six-month route requiring written notification within one month.
However, that does not necessarily mean that every possibility of necessity-based termination has disappeared. The alternative route linked to the existing lease period should be examined.
This demonstrates why deadlines should be calculated immediately after acquisition.
A foreign investor purchases an apartment in Izmir after the seller expressly promises that the tenant will leave before title transfer.
The transaction is completed, but the tenant remains and states that no agreement to leave was ever made.
The investor must analyze the tenant’s legal position separately from any contractual claim against the seller for breach of the vacant-possession promise.
A foreign investor purchases a tenanted apartment in Mersin because the price is attractive but later discovers that the existing rent is substantially below current market levels.
The owner cannot simply terminate the lease because a new tenant would pay more.
The rent and eviction issues must be addressed through the legally available mechanisms.
A foreign owner purchases an apartment in Bursa because a qualifying family member genuinely needs housing there.
An acquisition-based necessity claim may potentially be considered if the statutory requirements are met.
The owner should be prepared to establish that the need is real and continuing.
No. The new owner generally enters the existing rental relationship as landlord.
Potentially, yes. A genuine and necessary personal residential requirement can support eviction under the applicable rules.
For the acquisition-based necessity route under Article 351, written notice must be given within one month after acquisition.
No. The one-month period concerns notification. Under the specific acquisition-based route, the lawsuit may be pursued after six months from acquisition.
Not simply because the owner believes the current rent is too low.
Potentially, yes, where the relationship falls within the statutory framework and the need is genuine and necessary.
That promise does not automatically terminate the tenant’s rights. It may instead create a separate contractual issue between the buyer and seller.
Most rental disputes are subject to mandatory pre-litigation mediation, with a statutory exception for certain enforcement-based eviction proceedings.
The owner should not use unilateral self-help to bypass the legally required eviction process.
Generally, legal representation can be arranged through an appropriately prepared power of attorney, allowing much of the process to be handled without the owner being physically present at every stage.
An occupied property should be treated differently from a vacant property during legal due diligence.
The foreign purchaser should obtain the complete rental agreement before paying the purchase price and confirm the commencement date, rent, deposit, duration, payment history and any separate agreement concerning departure. The buyer should also determine whether litigation or enforcement proceedings already exist.
Most importantly, the buyer should decide before acquisition whether the property is being purchased as an investment with the tenant remaining in place or because the buyer genuinely needs vacant possession.
If vacant possession is essential, the buyer should not rely on a real-estate agent’s informal statement that “the tenant will leave after the sale.”
The timing of the acquisition can trigger important statutory deadlines. Missing the one-month written-notice period associated with the new-owner necessity route can materially alter the eviction strategy.
The buyer should also remember that an occupied property may have financial value precisely because of the existing tenancy. Purchase-price negotiations should therefore reflect the tenant’s legal position and the realistic time and cost required to obtain possession.
Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign property owners and investors dealing with existing tenants in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin, Bursa and throughout Turkey.
Legal assistance may include pre-purchase review of occupied properties, examination of existing rental agreements, assessment of personal-necessity claims, preparation of acquisition notices, mandatory mediation, eviction proceedings, unpaid-rent disputes, disputes concerning surrender agreements, negotiations with tenants and claims against sellers who promised vacant possession but transferred an occupied property.
Foreign purchasers should seek advice particularly quickly when they intend to use the property personally. The first month following acquisition can be legally important, and waiting for informal negotiations to fail may affect the procedural options available.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile / WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Office: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey
The central rule for 2026 is clear: purchasing an occupied property does not automatically remove the tenant. The foreign buyer generally becomes the new landlord under the existing lease. However, where the new owner or a qualifying family member has a genuine and necessary need for the property, eviction may be pursued through the statutory new-owner procedure. Correct notice, strict timing, mediation and evidence of genuine necessity can determine whether the claim succeeds.