Brockett V. Carnes, 273 Pa. Super

If so, does that include the Tenant's improvements as well? Yes

• 
  a provision in their lease providing that the "[l]essors shall be liable for exterior maintenance and extraordinary maintenance" required the lessors to rebuild the premises after they had been destroyed by fire. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the order of the lower court.
  
• 
  Holding: . We hold that the lease did not require the lessors to rebuild the destroyed premises and that the lower court correctly granted the lessors' preliminary objections. (The lessee argues that the fact that the lessors maintained insurance on the premises is an additional factor showing that the lessors were required to rebuild the premises. This contention is without merit because the existence of insurance coverage is irrelevant in determining the lessors' obligations under the lease.)
  
• 
  
  

• 
  The lease ivas not terminated by the provisions of paragraph Fourth thereof, since the fire occasioned damage only to the store and there was not a “ total destruction of the building by fire ”. Moreover, the conduct of the tenant shows that he did not consider the lease terminated. The only relief to which the tenant under the terms of the lease is entitled is an abatement of the rent “ for such period as is necessary for the actual m making of repairs While the evidence shows that the repairs were made in one month’s time, the landlord delayed ten days in commencing work and the tenant is therefore entitled to an offset in the sum of $333.33.
  
• 
  Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for landlord for $424.80, with costs
  

• 
  There was a fire at the premises and the landlord claimed that the tenant refused to permit repair unless the work could have been done in such a manner that the tenant's staff could have been present to protect its equipment and files. The trial court reasoned that it would have been unfair to give the owner a remedy of electing to terminate the lease by written notice to the tenant without giving such a right to the tenant under those unusual circumstances and found a constructive eviction. On review the court held that, under the lease agreement, the tenant was obligated to facilitate the restoration process by removing as promptly as possible its salvageable inventory and movable equipment, furniture and other property. The tenant, rather than cooperate, permanently moved to another premises and attempted to have the lease declared terminated. The court held that where a tenant in a commercial lease agreed to waive the protections of N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 227, which bestowed upon a constructively evicted tenant the opportunity to terminate its lease without further obligation, he was bound by the lease terms and was not to be relieved of his obligations.
  
• 
  When a tenant in a commercial lease agreed to waive the statutory protections that bestowed upon a constructively evicted tenant the opportunity to terminate its lease, he was bound by the lease terms and was not relieved of his obligation.