After Year Five, Courts Set Turkey's 2026 Rent Increase Rate

The annual CPI ceiling still matters in Turkey’s 2026 residential rent disputes. It is the ordinary reference point for leases that have not reached the five-year line, and the monthly TÜFE record—including the August 2026 12-month average of 31.90%—is already tracked in the companion article, What Is Turkey’s Legal Rent Increase Rate in 2026? This piece starts where that tracker stops: once a lease has crossed year five, the harder question is no longer just “what is the published cap?” It is whether a rent-determination claim can be filed, and what a court will accept as proof.

Non-advice note: this is a publication-level risk map, not legal advice on any particular Turkish lease. Turkish-law points should be reviewed by licensed Turkish counsel before a party files, settles, invoices, withholds, or books exposure. Last verified: Aug. 3, 2026. The Yargıtay 3rd Civil Chamber citation discussed below—E. 2024/1083, K. 2025/1439, dated March 10, 2025—is treated here as a secondary-source-reported citation unless it is independently checked against the underlying decision or a reliable primary database before publication.

The five-year trigger moves the dispute from a ceiling to a court test

Turkish Code of Obligations Article 344/3 is the statutory pivot. For leases longer than five years, or renewed after five years, either party may ask the court to determine the rent for the new lease year. The court is directed to consider the 12-month average consumer price index, the condition of the leased property, comparable rents, and equity when setting the amount.[1]

That last sentence is where many “Turkey 2026 rent increase cap rate law” explanations become too thin. The 12-month CPI average does not vanish. It remains part of the statutory formula. But after the five-year threshold, it is no longer the whole answer in the way a simple annual ceiling is often presented. A landlord arguing for a higher judicially determined rent needs comparable-market and property-condition evidence. A tenant resisting the increase can contest those comparables, the claimed condition of the unit, the timing of the lease year, and whether the action has been framed under the correct provision.

The expired 25% cap belongs in the history, not in the operative answer for 2026. Hürriyet Daily News reported the removal of the 25% rent-increase cap, and quoted real-estate law specialist Hasan Ceran on the practical point that leases exceeding five years can face above-CPI increases only through court approval.[2] For current disputes, that means a tenant cannot treat the old cap as a permanent shield, and a landlord cannot simply call a requested increase “market rent” and skip the statutory route.

Who can bring the claim, and what changes after year five

Article 344/3 is not only a landlord remedy. The statutory mechanism allows either party to seek a court-determined rent once the five-year condition is met.[1] In practice, landlords will often be the visible plaintiffs because they are trying to lift long-tenured rents toward asserted market levels. But the bilateral framing matters. A tenant may also need a determination where the rent being demanded or paid does not fit the statutory test.

The first practical question is lease-year arithmetic. A case that depends on Article 344/3 is not proved by pointing to the August 2026 CPI average alone. Counsel must identify the start date, renewal history, and the lease year for which the new rent is being sought. A lease signed in 2021 or 2022 may be approaching the zone that creates 2026 or near-2026 exposure, but the pleading still has to match the actual lease calendar.

The second question is evidence. The statute’s three most useful pricing inputs do different jobs:

• The 12-month CPI average gives the court a statutory economic reference point, but it does not by itself resolve a year-five rent-determination claim.
• The condition of the property directs attention to the leased unit itself: its age, maintenance, improvements, defects, location-specific qualities, and any feature that makes it materially different from the comparables being offered.
• Comparable market rents require proof that the comparison properties are actually comparable. A headline neighborhood rate is not the same as admissible evidence about similar units under similar conditions.

Those inputs also change settlement posture. Before year five, the annual cap conversation can be handled with a relatively narrow calculation. After year five, parties are pricing litigation risk: expert evidence, comparable selection, procedural timing, and the judge’s evaluation of equity all become part of the number.

Article 344, not Article 138, is the classification that matters

The classification point is not academic. Article 344 is the rent-specific rule. Article 138 is the general hardship-adaptation provision, directed to extraordinary circumstances that make performance excessively difficult under the statutory conditions.[1] A claim filed as rent determination asks the court to set rent under the lease-law mechanism. A hardship-adaptation theory asks a different legal question and carries a different burden.

MONA HUKUK reports that the Yargıtay 3rd Civil Chamber, in a March 10, 2025 decision identified as E. 2024/1083, K. 2025/1439, held that rent-determination claims belong under Article 344 rather than Article 138, resolving a split among Regional Courts of Appeal.[3] That is a load-bearing statement for 2026 practice, but it should be handled as what it is in this record: a secondary-source report unless the underlying decision is verified.

If the reported Yargıtay holding is confirmed, its practical consequence is straightforward. A landlord should not be able to turn an ordinary long-tenure rent increase dispute into a hardship case merely because market rents have moved. A tenant defending the suit can force the court back to the Article 344/3 structure: lease age, 12-month CPI average, property condition, comparable rents, and equity. The difference matters at the pleading stage, at the evidence stage, and in how counsel explains risk to a client who is expecting a single cap-rate answer.

Procedure still has to be separated from the percentage

Türkiye Today’s July 2025 explainer describes mandatory mediation before rent-related lawsuits, possible litigation lasting up to three years, and a ten-year renewal threshold for eviction without cause.[4] Those are useful reported practice points, especially for foreign investors or counsel outside Turkey who are trying to understand timing pressure. They should not be overstated as a complete procedural code. A filing decision still needs current Turkish procedural review.

The timing point is especially easy to mishandle. A landlord may be economically right that the rent is far below asserted market levels and still lose time if mediation, notice, filing, or lease-year timing is wrong. A tenant may be right that the demanded increase exceeds the annual CPI figure and still face a viable Article 344/3 claim if the lease has passed the five-year threshold. The procedural question is not a footnote to the rate; it is often the gateway to the rate.

Two adjacent risks worth flagging, not overbuilding

Foreign-currency leases raise a separate issue. MONA HUKUK states that, for foreign-currency leases, no increase can be applied during the first five years, with later treatment linked to the Article 344 framework.[3] That point is single-source in this record and should be checked before it is used to advise on a euro- or dollar-denominated lease.

Refund exposure is another adjacent risk. Gide discusses the return of rent payments made in excess of limits set under Article 344 in an unjust-enrichment context.[5] That does not turn every disputed payment into an automatic refund claim. It does mean that parties who invoice, pay, or reserve rights around contested increases should treat the paper trail as litigation material, not bookkeeping clutter.

A practical 2026 risk map for long-tenured Turkish leases

For a Turkish lease entering its sixth year in 2026, the safer framing is not “what is the single cap rate?” It is: has the lease crossed the five-year threshold, is a rent-determination claim procedurally available, and what evidence will the court weigh under Article 344/3? The CPI figure is still in the room. It is no longer the only witness.

References

1. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Mevzuat: MevzuatMetin/1.5.6098.pdf
2. Hürriyet Daily News: 25 percent rent increase cap removed
3. MONA HUKUK: Rent Increase Cap in Turkey: TBK Art. 344 and the CPI Rule
4. Türkiye Today, July 2025: July 2025 rental increase rules explained: What tenants and landlords should know
5. Gide: Return of rent payments made in excess of the limits set under Article 344