23. Law Office
Principal Number: 2019/1917
Decision Number: 2019/513
“Justice Text”
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the action for the annulment of the objection between the parties, the file was examined after the parties’ attorneys appealed within the time limit of the verdict given for the rejection of the case due to the reasons written in the verdict.
– DECISION –
The attorney of the plaintiffs, the decedent of their clients… and the defendant contractor signed a construction contract in return for a land share on 19.03.2010, the defendant did not deliver the flats in accordance with the article 17 of the contract, it was unfairly objected to the proceedings initiated against the defendant that he would receive rent compensation and delay increase based on the contract. claiming that the objection be canceled and …-the collection of denial compensation from the defendant and sued.
The defendant’s attorney demanded the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not accept the invitation even though the client had completed the construction and invited it to be delivered, that the other owners did not have objections regarding the deficiency and the defect, that the building began to be inhabited, and that there were even tenants in some flats.
According to the scope of the claim, defense and the entire file by the court; It is necessary to accept that the land owners have delivered the land on 18.08.2010, suitable for construction, and that the construction completion time is 18.09.2011 for this reason, and that the land owner has no justification for refraining from the delivery due to deficiencies without taking delivery, therefore he can ask for the rental fees working until December 2011. The lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that they could not file a claim for January 2012 and later, which was the subject of the proceedings.
The parties’ attorneys appealed the decision.
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the compelling reasons, and the lack of inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, all the objections of the defendant’s attorney were not deemed appropriate.
2- The contractor must perform an action in accordance with the construction, project and contract on the date determined in accordance with the construction contract in return for the land share. The owner of the land cannot be compelled to take delivery of a construction with incomplete and defective manufacturing.
In the concrete incident, according to the reply notice dated 23.01.2012, the owner of the land; is right not to take delivery of the independent section due to the alleged deficiencies. Since these deficiencies were remedied by the contractor later and a new notice regarding delivery was not issued, the court should have determined the delay time and determined the rental price, but it was not correct to reject the case with a erroneous justification.
CONCLUSION: All objections of the defendant’s attorney were rejected for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above; Within 15 days from the notification of the decision, the way of rectification is open for the plaintiff and the way of rectification is closed for the defendant.
It was decided unanimously on 18.02.2019.
