[ad_1]
The debate on the infiltration of water, which was opened among the neighbors, took on a new dimension with the final decision of the XX Legal Department of the Supreme Court. The citizen, who suffered from the leakage of water from the balcony and bathroom of his upstairs neighbor, first chose the path of dialogue.
Stating that his neighbor had damaged his house and that he had to make the necessary renovations, the inhabitant of the victim’s apartment went to the Civil Court of First Instance because his neighbor ignored the problem. The owner of apartment number 11, the upstairs neighbor, requested that his apartment be damaged by leaks in his balcony and bathroom, he asked the Justice of the Peace to determine the damages, so the sum of the damages was 1,168 TL and 1,000 TL a non-pecuniary compensation.
6. Civil Court of First Instance; With the acceptance of 850 TL of the pecuniary compensation claim, it was decided to remove the defendant and deliver it to the plaintiff with the legal interest to collect from the date of the case, the plaintiff’s excess claim and the rejection of all the moral compensation requested by the plaintiff.
Evaluating the appeal of the parties, the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice annulled the sentence because it considered that the court in charge of the trial was the Peace Court. The 2nd Civil Peace Court, which continued its trial after the decision of incompetence of the Civil Court of First Instance, with the acceptance of the case; Moisture, spillage, and blackening in Plaintiff’s balcony and bathroom are understood to be caused by Defendant’s apartment and capillary gaps between balustrades and balcony trim to be filled with liquid waterproof insulation materials. ordered that the defendant be given 1 business day for this transaction.
It was decided to give the defendant 2 business days to remove the bathtub in the defendant’s apartment bathroom, renew the tile and gaskets, and then install the acrylic bathtub. The sentence was appealed by the accused.
The 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals has made a previous decision. The Office, which finds the compensation decision in place; He stated that the renovation of the ground floor apartment must also be carried out by the owner of the apartment where the water was leaking. The Chamber decided to unanimously uphold the judicial decision.
