The Supreme Court decided that landlord and tenant interests from millions. Citizens who rent out property on January 1, 2011 in Gaziantep, 30 thousand pounds accumulated about enforcement proceedings initiated on grounds that tenant could not get rent. 1. Gaziantep Filed in court, law enforcement, and evacuation in case of Executive proceeding appeal tenant on tenancy agreement that is not defending defendant's signature, source is not obvious that a front page without anor contract on back pages of this Convention which was prepared by adding ir own signature, so do not accept that you are not aware of debt expressed. The defendant's objection is to deny his signature on lease contract in court if enforcement Court ruled that eviction would not ask for abolition of appeals from property owner. A lease agreement exists between creditor with debtor, court is unable to submit documents to prove that case should be rejected on grounds that decided that.
The owner of property when plaintiff appeals decision of circuit went to Supreme Court. 6 of Supreme Court. Law Office (closed), on basis of defendant's Case pointed out that rental did not deny his signature on contract.
The apartment who signed a precedent decision, defendant claimed that lease was created with signature of anor document that had recalled. The resolution contained following statements:"based on a single piece of original copy of lease agreement and defendant's signature on front page of contract, although decisions of Supreme Court does not have settled, depending on contents of text consisting of multiple pages that carry ongoing meaning and integrity of ingredients is provided, all pages of written contract by parties does not require signature.
by court, according to results of work examining merits of a decision should be made when dispute requires decision of denial of judgment of case on grounds that it is not correct. The decision should be intact. Decision for reasons described, corruption, poet appeals objections wher to study for now, upon request, received in advance, it was decided by unanimous vote to return appeal fee to appeal."