MİLLİ KORUNMA KANUNU ÇERÇEVESİNDE TÜRKİYE’DE KİRA DENETİMİ MESELESİ (1940-1960)
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2020
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Öz:II. Dünya Savaşının ilk yıllarında Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP) Hükümetinin Türkiye’nin savaşa girme ihtimalinin ortaya çıkarabileceği ekonomik sorunlara çözüm bulmak, fiyatların yükselmesine engel olmak vb. gerekçelerle yürürlüğe koyduğu Milli Korunma Kanunu, günümüze kadar çeşitli boyutları ile tartışılmıştır. Bu kanun yürürlükte olduğu dönemde, temel tüketim maddelerinin karne ile satışa sunulmasından, işgücünün ve piyasa fiyatlarının denetlenmesine kadar, hükümete geniş müdahale yetkisi tanımıştır. Bu doğrultuda Kanunun 30.maddesi ile de konut kiraları 1939 yılı rayici ile sınırlandırılmıştır. Kiraların sabitlenmesi, giderek ağırlaşan ekonomik şartlar dolayısıyla toplumsal huzursuzluklara neden olmuştur. Bu süreçte, ev sahipleri ve kiracılar arasında anlaşmazlıklar yaşanmaya başlamış, kanun çerçevesinde uygulanan cezaların tatbiki ise başka sorunlara yol açmıştır. Ortaya çıkan aksaklıkları gidermek amacı ile 30. Madde üzerinde sık sık tadilat yapılsa da kalıcı bir çözüm bulunamamıştır. Bütün bu düzenlemeler, ne kiracıları ne de gayrimenkul sahiplerini memnun etmemiştir. İsmet İnönü döneminde ülkenin içinde bulunduğu ekonomik güçlükler nedeniyle kira denetimi, hem savaş yıllarında hem de sonrasında uygulanmaya devam etmiştir. Bu süreçte, her ne kadar 30. madde üzerinde 1940,1942,1944 ve 1947 yıllarında çeşitli değişiklikler yapılsa da kira bedelleri üzerindeki sınırlamanın kaldırılmaması özellikle mülk sahiplerinin tepkisini çekmiştir. Esasında CHP Hükümetleri, satın alma gücünün düştüğü aynı zamanda konut sorununun yaşandığı bu dönemde kiracıları korumayı istemiştir. Kanunun açıklarından yararlanan mülk sahipleri ise çeşitli yöntemlerle kira bedelini artırmaya çalışmıştır. Ancak, Kanuna aykırı olarak kira artırmak da “karaborsa” olarak değerlendirilmiş, 58. madde gereğince de cezalar uygulanmıştır. 1950 yılında Demokrat Parti(DP)iktidara gelmiş ancak bu uygulama çeşitli değişikliklerle birlikte sürmüştür. Kira bedellerinin sabitlenmesi gerek TBMM’de gerek basında tartışılmış, Başbakan Adnan Menderes’e pek çok şikâyet mektubu yazılmıştır. Meclisteki kanun tekliflerine, kamuoyunun taleplerine rağmen kira kanununda uzun bir süre değişiklik olmamış, mevcut sorunlar da aynı şekilde devam etmiştir. Ülkenin içinde bulunduğu ekonomik sıkıntılar, DP hükümetini çeşitli tedbirler almaya sevk ederken, 1955 yılında yeni Kira Kanunu kabul edilmiştir. Buna göre 1947’den sonra inşa edilen binaların kira bedeli 1953 tarihinde yapılan sözleşmelerdeki fiyatlara sabitlenmiştir. DP döneminde, köyden kente göçün ivme kazanması ve artan nüfus karşısında konutların yetersizliği kira meselesini hep gündemde tutmuştur. Ekonomik şartların giderek ağırlaşması ve göçler dar gelirli kişileri gecekondu inşa etmeye yöneltmiştir. Bu durum başka sorunların ortaya çıkmasına neden olduğu gibi 1950’li yıllarda gecekondu sayısında da artış yaşanmıştır. Bununla birlikte malzeme yokluğu ve pahalılık gibi sebeplerle yeni inşaatların yapılamaması da mesken buhranın artmasına neden olmuştur. Bu süreçte, küçük yerleşim yerlerinden büyük merkezlere doğru gidildikçe, kiralık
Öz:Turkish National Protection Law (1940) which has been enacted by Government of Republican People's Party (CHP) in the early years of World War II with the reasons of finding solutions to the economic problems that may arise with the likelihood of Turkey’s participation into war and preventing the rise in the prices and etc. has been discussed with its various dimensions until today. During the period that the law was in force, it granted the government a wide range of intervention powers, from basic consumption items being offered for sale on carnet to the monitoring of labor and market prices. In this context, with the article 30 of the Law, rental prices of the houses were limited to the current rate of 1939. Fixing rental prices created social unrest due to economic conditions which was increasing gradually. In this process, disagreements arose between landlords and tenants, and enforcement of penalties applied under the Law caused other problems. Although the amendments were made frequently on the 30th article of Law in order to eliminate the problems that arose, a permanent solution could not be found. All these arrangements did not please either tenants or real estate owners. During Inonu era, controlling rental prices continued to be applied during the war years and afterwards due to economic difficulties. In this process, even though various amendments were made to the 30th article in 1940, 1942, 1944 and 1947, the fact that the limitation on the rent was not lifted was particularly protested by the owners. In fact, the CHP Governments wanted to protect tenants during this period, when their purchasing power declined and the housing problem was experienced. The tenants, who benefited from the deficits of the law, tried to increase the rental price by various methods. However, increasing the rent with violation of the law was also considered as a “black market” and penalties were imposed under Article 58. In 1950, the Democrat Party (DP) came to power, but this practice continued to be implemented with various changes in law. Fixing rental prices were being discussed both in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and in the press and many complaint letters towards law were written to Adnan Menderes, prime minister of Turkey. Despite the proposals and the demands of the law in both National Assembly and also public opinion, the rental law had not been changed for a long time, and the existing problems continued in the same way. While the country's economic problems caused the DP government to take various measures, the new Rental Law was adopted in 1955. Accordingly, the rental price of the contractions built after 1947 was fixed to the prices in the contracts made in 1953. In the DP period, the acceleration of migration from the village to the city and insufficient housing in the face of the increasing population kept the rental issue on the agenda. The increasing economic conditions and migrations led people with low incomes to build slums. This situation caused other problems to arise, and in the 1950s, the number of slums increased. However, the fact that new buildings could not be constructed due to lack of materials and increase in cost caused a rise in residential depression. In this process, as going from small settlements to large centers, it is seen that the number of people living in a rented house also increased. Especially Istanbul and Ankara came to the fore as the cities where tenants live at most. In this context, disagreements between real estate owners and tenants have also occurred most in these cities. The practice of rent control which started in the CHP period, continued in DP period with various regulations. In the period of both governments, the issue was evaluated in a narrow scope and small amendments were included to the Law instead of creating a realistic housing policy. In this regard, the issue of rent control in consequence of Turkish National Protection Law which was in force between 1940-1960 has been analyzed in this paper. The main purpose of this paper is to be able to identify the problems posed by practices of the law and its effects on the society. Archival documents of Presidential State Archives/Presidency Republic Archives (BCA), newspapers of the period, Sessions of Grand National Assembly and also the Official Gazette have been used in this study.
Öz:Turkish National Protection Law (1940) which has been enacted by Government of Republican People's Party (CHP) in the early years of World War II with the reasons of finding solutions to the economic problems that may arise with the likelihood of Turkey’s participation into war and preventing the rise in the prices and etc. has been discussed with its various dimensions until today. During the period that the law was in force, it granted the government a wide range of intervention powers, from basic consumption items being offered for sale on carnet to the monitoring of labor and market prices. In this context, with the article 30 of the Law, rental prices of the houses were limited to the current rate of 1939. Fixing rental prices created social unrest due to economic conditions which was increasing gradually. In this process, disagreements arose between landlords and tenants, and enforcement of penalties applied under the Law caused other problems. Although the amendments were made frequently on the 30th article of Law in order to eliminate the problems that arose, a permanent solution could not be found. All these arrangements did not please either tenants or real estate owners. During Inonu era, controlling rental prices continued to be applied during the war years and afterwards due to economic difficulties. In this process, even though various amendments were made to the 30th article in 1940, 1942, 1944 and 1947, the fact that the limitation on the rent was not lifted was particularly protested by the owners. In fact, the CHP Governments wanted to protect tenants during this period, when their purchasing power declined and the housing problem was experienced. The tenants, who benefited from the deficits of the law, tried to increase the rental price by various methods. However, increasing the rent with violation of the law was also considered as a “black market” and penalties were imposed under Article 58. In 1950, the Democrat Party (DP) came to power, but this practice continued to be implemented with various changes in law. Fixing rental prices were being discussed both in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and in the press and many complaint letters towards law were written to Adnan Menderes, prime minister of Turkey. Despite the proposals and the demands of the law in both National Assembly and also public opinion, the rental law had not been changed for a long time, and the existing problems continued in the same way. While the country's economic problems caused the DP government to take various measures, the new Rental Law was adopted in 1955. Accordingly, the rental price of the contractions built after 1947 was fixed to the prices in the contracts made in 1953. In the DP period, the acceleration of migration from the village to the city and insufficient housing in the face of the increasing population kept the rental issue on the agenda. The increasing economic conditions and migrations led people with low incomes to build slums. This situation caused other problems to arise, and in the 1950s, the number of slums increased. However, the fact that new buildings could not be constructed due to lack of materials and increase in cost caused a rise in residential depression. In this process, as going from small settlements to large centers, it is seen that the number of people living in a rented house also increased. Especially Istanbul and Ankara came to the fore as the cities where tenants live at most. In this context, disagreements between real estate owners and tenants have also occurred most in these cities. The practice of rent control which started in the CHP period, continued in DP period with various regulations. In the period of both governments, the issue was evaluated in a narrow scope and small amendments were included to the Law instead of creating a realistic housing policy. In this regard, the issue of rent control in consequence of Turkish National Protection Law which was in force between 1940-1960 has been analyzed in this paper. The main purpose of this paper is to be able to identify the problems posed by practices of the law and its effects on the society. Archival documents of Presidential State Archives/Presidency Republic Archives (BCA), newspapers of the period, Sessions of Grand National Assembly and also the Official Gazette have been used in this study.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
BELGİ DERGİSİ
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
Künye
BULUT S (2020). MİLLİ KORUNMA KANUNU ÇERÇEVESİNDE TÜRKİYE’DE KİRA DENETİMİ MESELESİ (1940-1960). BELGİ DERGİSİ, 2(20), 2627 - 2656. Doi: 10.33431/belgi.747988
