In Antalya, a Russian woman named Zhanna Khudyakova has found herself living in the basement of a warehouse after a legal stalemate over evicting a long-term tenant from her own apartment. The situation has drawn attention to how property rights and tenancy disputes can unfold in a city known for its tourist draw and a regulatory framework that is changing how rental housing is licensed. Local observers describe the case as a striking example of the friction that can occur when ownership and occupancy diverge, and they note that the tenant remains in place while court processes wind through the system. The primary claim centers on the owner’s legal ability to reclaim her own property and the complications that arise when the tenant resists eviction, forcing Khudyakova to seek a temporary, albeit uncomfortable, solution while the legal path progresses. The case has also sparked discussions about the proportionality of eviction remedies and the manner in which foreign ownership interacts with Turkish tenancy law.
Khudyakova purchased the apartment a decade ago, a milestone that framed the entire dispute. Her absence from Turkey for the past two years meant she had not personally managed the property for a substantial period, yet she returned with the aim of resuming occupancy and regaining control over the premises. The return coincided with a tenant still occupying the unit she had financed and insured. This combination of long-term investment, temporary absence, and a resident tenant created a legal question: could the owner compel the eviction and reassert her rights without triggering protracted disputes or endangering the tenant’s housing stability? The narrative highlights the delicate balance courts strive to strike between private property rights and the protection of individuals who continue to reside in rental arrangements under a landlord’s claim.
Following formal filings, a court evaluated the case and ruled in favor of eviction, but the verdict was promptly appealed by the tenant. The appellate process extended the period during which the tenant could legally remain in the property, leading to Khudyakova spending more than a year and a half in a warehouse’s basement while the matter remained unsettled. The delay is a sobering reminder of how appellate procedures can slow the practical enforcement of eviction orders, leaving owners in limbo and affecting the perception of property rights in a market that increasingly treats regulatory compliance as a baseline expectation. Observers note that the protracted timeline may influence future negotiations and settlements, especially in cross-border ownership scenarios where language, residency, and jurisdiction add layers of complexity.
At the start of this year, Turkey began enforcing stricter rules around renting unlicensed housing to tourists. Since January, landlords who intend to rent accommodations to visitors for periods shorter than 100 days must secure a valid license. This license is issued through the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and is intended to ensure safety, compliance, and proper oversight of short-term rentals. The new regime places additional duties on property owners and property managers, and it has been accompanied by increased inspections and penalties for non-compliance. For owners like Khudyakova, such licensing requirements create a practical layer of oversight to navigate in parallel with eviction proceedings, and they reinforce the broader policy shift toward formalizing temporary housing markets. The overall effect is a more regulated rental environment that aims to protect guests, neighbors, and the broader community while clarifying the responsibilities of operators and owners.
Earlier reports indicated that there were discussions about easing rental price restrictions in Turkey, with a potential lifting of certain limits expected around July 1. The policy debate highlighted the tension between encouraging investment in housing and tourism, and maintaining stable housing access for residents. The evolving regulatory stance has prompted both tenants and landlords to reassess their positions, timelines, and expectations, especially in cases involving foreign-owned property and cross-border tenancy arrangements. The situation surrounding Khudyakova’s eviction case is often cited in analyses of how policy announcements translate into immediate real-world consequences for property owners and tenants alike.