Supreme Court's Excess Rent Decision: Can Businesses Request Refunds for Overpayments?

The decision published in the Official Gazette on August 19, 2026, by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court presents an important legal distinction for tenants who believe they have paid rent exceeding the amount stipulated in the contract.

The decision has been interpreted in the public as "excess rent can be reclaimed." However, what the Supreme Court did was not to issue a direct refund decision in favor of the tenant.

The High Court ruled that the first-instance court rejected the case with incorrect legal qualification and that the substance of the tenant's claim of overpayment needed to be examined. In other words, whether the tenant actually made an overpayment and, if so, how much should be refunded will be evaluated based on the evidence of the specific case.

The Dispute Started with a Claim of 9,822 TL

The lease agreement in question was dated August 3, 2022.

The tenant claimed that payments were made to the account indicated by the landlord's spouse and that there was a certain rate of increase in the parties' actual practice. Later, the landlord's side demanded an increase in rent above the arrangement in the contract for economic reasons, claiming that they were forced to make higher payments under pressure.

The tenant requested the return of a total of 9,822 TL, including interest, claiming that part of the payments made was excessive.

The Polatlı 2nd Civil Court of Peace evaluated the request as a "recovery lawsuit" under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

The court rejected the case on the grounds that the payment was not made under a finalized enforcement proceeding and threat of coercive execution.

After the decision was finalized, the Ministry of Justice appealed the case to the Supreme Court for the benefit of the law.

Supreme Court: The Name of the Case is Determined by Law, Not the Parties

The evaluation of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court centers on Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to this provision, the parties present the material facts; the judge determines how these facts will be legally qualified and which legal rule will be applied.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the legal expressions used by the tenant in the petition do not bind the court.

According to the Chamber, in this case, the tenant was not requesting the return of a sum paid under a finalized enforcement proceeding. The tenant was primarily requesting the return of amounts that were allegedly collected excessively without a legal reason within the rental relationship.

Therefore, instead of rejecting the case solely on the grounds that "the conditions for a recovery lawsuit were not met," the court should have determined the true legal nature of the request and examined the substance of the dispute.

The Decision Does Not Create an Automatic Right to Refund

This is the most important point for businesses.

The Supreme Court did not say, "everyone who pays rent exceeding the rate in the contract can reclaim the excess amount."

The Supreme Court's decision indicates that the claim of overpayment must be substantively evaluated by the judiciary.

In this evaluation, the provision regarding the increase in the lease agreement, whether a new agreement was made between the parties afterward, the explanation under which the payment was made, whether the tenant disputed the payment, and whether the parties have maintained the same practice for a long time may be important.

This distinction is also seen in older Supreme Court decisions. For example, in some disputes where it is accepted that the parties have effectively agreed on a new rental amount, there are decisions stating that the tenant cannot later request a refund based on claims of overpayment. Conversely, there are also examples where refunds of alleged overpayments made with a dispute record and claimed to be contrary to the contract can be evaluated.

Therefore, each rental relationship must be evaluated based on its own contract and evidence.

Why Is It Important for Commercial Tenants?

The impact of the decision is not limited to residential rents.

A significant portion of restaurants, cafes, bars, hotels, travel agencies, and other tourism businesses are not owners of the properties they operate but tenants.

Especially in long-term commercial lease agreements, the clauses regarding rent increases directly affect the future cost structure of the business.

During periods of high inflation, different actual practices may develop between the parties regarding the increase provision in the contract. The business may agree to pay a higher amount to avoid losing its operations, or different interpretations that could later turn into disputes may arise while making payments.

Therefore, for commercial tenants, it is important not only what the increase provision in the contract states but also how the actual payments are recorded.

Distinguishing Voluntary Payment from Legal Obligation

An academic study on rent increases published in the Journal of the Turkish Justice Academy emphasizes the importance of the will with which payments exceeding the limit are made in the refund of such payments.

According to the study, for a tenant requesting a refund under the provisions of unjust enrichment, elements such as believing they are indebted when making the payment or that the payment was not truly voluntary gain importance. In commercial rents, the nature of the payment and the agreement between the parties must also be evaluated separately.

Therefore, the legal assessment that will arise in a situation where the business has made payments openly accepting the new amount without raising any objections for months may not be the same as in a situation where the business has made a payment while stating that it is contrary to the contract and recording its objection.

What Records Should Businesses Keep?

Reconstructing the payment method from previous years can be difficult after a rental dispute arises.

Therefore, it is important for HORECA businesses with particularly high rental expenses to regularly keep the following documents:

• Signed lease agreement and all annex protocols

• Rent increase rates specified in the contract

• Bank transfer and EFT records

• Payment explanations

• Email and correspondence regarding rent increases with the landlord

• Objection records or legal notifications

• Mediation and notary documents

• Accounting records

• Written agreements showing subsequent changes in rent

For commercial businesses, these records are valuable not only for legal files but also for cost control.

Especially in restaurant and retail groups with multiple branches, failing to centrally monitor rent increases can lead to discrepancies between contractual obligations and actual payments going unnoticed for years.

Mediation Before Lawsuit is Also on the Agenda

Mandatory mediation is applied in many disputes arising from rental relationships before lawsuits.

The study published in the Journal of the Turkish Justice Academy also indicates that, except for relevant exceptions, mediation should be sought before filing a lawsuit in disputes regarding the refund of rent.

Therefore, instead of a business that believes it has overpaid rent acting directly with the approach of "I will get my money back," it is more appropriate to evaluate its contract, payment records, and the legal conditions of the specific case with expert support.

Stafflink's Opinion

In our view, the most important aspect of the Supreme Court's decision for HORECA businesses is the risk of viewing rent merely as a monthly accounting payment.

In restaurants and hotels, rent is often one of the largest fixed expenses along with personnel and product costs. Even a small difference between the increase rate stated in the contract and the amount actually paid can turn into a significant cost over a few years.

Therefore, it is not sufficient for businesses to simply file their lease agreements and only track the payment date. When the period of increase arrives, the formula in the contract, legal limits, annex protocols, and actual payments should be checked together.

This decision does not grant businesses an automatic right to a refund. However, it strongly reminds that the management of rent must be conducted in conjunction with legal records, accounting, and operations.