Another obligation which the law imposes upon the tenant, independent of any agree ment, is so to use the premises as not to in jure them unnecessarily and this implied covenant has been said to be in effect a cove nant against voluntary waste and nothing more, and it does not make the tenant an swerable for accidental damages ; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 24 L. Ed. 65. If the lessee covenants to return the premises in good repair he cannot require the lessor to make any repairs ; Hays v. Moody, 2 N. Y. Supp. 385 ; so also, if there be no stipulation on the subject of repairs, the tenant is bound to keep the premises in ordinary repair ; Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. 305. Except where the lease contains a special exemption, the tenant is responsible for any waste commit ted on the premises; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Savitz, 57 Ill. App. 659; such as the re moval of stairways, elevators, etc., from the building ; Palmer v. Young, 108 Ill. App. 252 ; or of fences from the land; Brown v. Hord, 15 S. W. 874, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 916 ; or of a portion of a building; Bass v. R. Co., 82 Fed. 857, 27 C. C. A. 147, 39 L. R. A. 711; the undertaking to deliver up the premises at the end of the term in as good condition as when they were taken is subject to the limitation of such wear and tear as is inci dent to the use of which the premises is put ; Jennings v. Bond, 14 Ind. App. 282, 42 N. E. 957; and the tenant is not obliged under such covenant to replace fixtures which have become useless from ordinary wear and tear ; Fox v. Lynch, 71 N. J. Eq. 537, 64 Atl. 439.
The covenant to keep in repair means only in as good repair as when the lease was made ; St. Joseph & St. L. R. Co. v. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 173, 36 S. W. 602, 33 L. R. A. 607; he is not bound to improve a building which was old and dilapidated when he took pos session; Stultz v. Locke, 47 Md. 562. Under an agreement to keep the house in "good and tenantable repair" and to leave the same at the expiration of the term, the tenant's obligation is to keep and put the premises in such repair, having regard for the age, character and locality of the house, as would make it reasonably fit for the oc cupation of the class that would be likely to take it ; Pridefoot v. Hart, 59 L. J. Q. B. D. 43; in construing such a covenant the age and general condition of the premises must be considered; Willcock v. Due, 1 F. & F. 337.
Where the tenant had a covenant that the premises were to be kept in a cleanly and healthy condition, he was justified in aban doning them when the landlord rendered them uninhabitable by maintaining a nui sance ; Sully v. Schmitt, 147 N. Y. 248, 41 N. E. 514, 49 Am. St. Rep. 659.
But the tenant is not bound to rebuild premises which have accidentally become 'ru inous during his occupation; nor is he an swerable for ordinary wear and tear, nor for an accidental fire, nor to put a new roof on the building, nor to make what are usual ly called general or substantial repairs; Ea gle v. Swayze, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 140 ; Street v. Brewing Co., 101 App. Div. 3, 91 N. Y. Supp. 547. Neither is he bound to do painting, whitewashing, or papering, except so far as they may be necessary to preserve exposed timber from decay ; Wise v. Metcalfe, 10 B. & C. 299. In general he need do nothing which will make the inheritance better than he found it ; Torvians v. Young, 6 C. & P.
8 ; Long v. Fitzimmons, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 530.
There is no implied contract binding the lessee to restore buildings which have been destroyed by accident ; Earle v. Arbogast, 180 Pa. 409, 36 Atl. 923. Under a covenant by the lessee to deliver up the premises in as good condition as when the lease was made, unavoidable (or inevitable) accident excepted, the landlord is not liable for the repairs to a window broken by a storm ; Turner v. Town send, 42 Neb. 376, 60 N. W. 587; or for one broken by a stone kicked by a passing horse ; Peck v. Mfg. Co., 43 Ill. App. 360. If there he an express covenant by the tenant to re pair, he must do so though the premises be destroyed by fire ; Hoy v. Holt, 91 Pa. 88, 36 Am, Rep. 659 ; Phillips v. Stevens, 16 Mass. 238 ; contra, if, there is no express covenant to repair ; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 24 L. Ed. 65. Where the lease required the tenant to "cash any repairs" on the leased premises to a specified amount, the landlord acquires no right to charge the tenant with repairs made by himself ; Schrage v. Miller, 44 Neb. 818, 62 N. W. 1091. Under a cove nant that the tenant shall "make the neces sary repairs," he is liable for the breaking of a plate glass in the building, though without his fault ; Cohn v. Hill, 9 Misc. 326, 39 N. Y. Supp. 209. Where an' explosion occurred in a leased building, the landlord was not relieved of the burden of showing negligence of the lessee ; Easby v. Easby, 180 Pa. 429, 36 Atl. 923.
Where the tenant had covenanted to make the repairs but the landlord authorized his agent to do some repairing in the course of which, by reason of unskilful workmanship, the wall fell upon a tenant's goods, the land lord was liable; Lynch v. Ortleib & Co., 87 Tex. 590, 30 S. W. 545 ; id.; 28 S. W. 1017.
With respect to farming leases, a tenant is under a similar obligation to repair; but it differs from the general obligation in this, that it is confined to the dwelling-house which he, burden of repairing and maintaining the out-buildings and other erections on the farm being sustained either by the landlord, or the tenant, in the absence of any express provision in the lease, by the particular custom of the country in which the farm is situated. He is always bound, however, to cultivate the farm in a good and husband-like-manner, to keep the fences hi repair, and to preserve the timber and orna mental trees in good condition; Standen v. Cristmas, 10 Q. B. 135; and for any viola tion of any of these duties he is liable to be proceeded against by the landlord for waste, whether the act of waste be committed by the tenant or, through his negligence, by a stranger ; Co. Litt. 53; Atersoll v. Stephens, 1 Taunt. 198; Cook v. Transp. Co., 1 Denio (N. Y.) 104 ; Aughinbaugh v. Coppenheffer, 55 Pa. 347; Walker v. Tucker, 70 Ill. 527; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 24 L. Ed. 65; 5 Term 373; to till a farm contrary to the usual rotation of crops and to the usage of the country is waste ; Wilds v. Layton, 1 Del. Ch. 226, 12 Am. Dec. 91. As to what constitutes waste, see that title, and see also Taylor,. Landlord & Tenant § 346 et seq.