If you discover a defect in a Japanese rental property, the first steps are to notify your landlord or the management company and to document the condition with dated photographs. Under Japanese law, defects in the building or its equipment—the roof, the floor, the water supply and drainage—are in principle the landlord’s (lessor’s) responsibility to repair (Civil Code Article 606). This is a point international readers should note early: unlike the United States, where a tenant’s repair remedies rest largely on the judge-made “implied warranty of habitability” that varies state by state, Japan writes the landlord’s repair duty directly into its national Civil Code (民法, Minpō), so the same baseline rule applies everywhere in the country. Leaving a defect unaddressed lets it worsen and can shift the cost to the tenant at move-out, which is why early notification and record-keeping decide who ultimately pays. This article organizes, from a Japanese property-management practitioner’s perspective, how liability is divided by type of defect, the step-by-step process from reporting to resolution, what to do when a landlord will not act, and how the line is drawn for restoration at move-out.
Key points of this article
- Defects in the building and its equipment are in principle the landlord’s cost; damage caused by the tenant’s intent or negligence is the tenant’s cost.
- When you find a defect, act in the order “notify, document, then arrange contractors through the landlord.” The basic rule is not to commission repair work on your own.
- If the landlord fails to repair without a legitimate reason, you can—after giving formal notice—consider self-repair by the tenant (Civil Code Article 607-2) or a rent reduction (Civil Code Article 611).
- Ordinary wear-and-tear and age-related deterioration at move-out are in principle the landlord’s burden, and the line is drawn using the guidelines issued by Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT).
Why you should never ignore a defect in a Japanese rental property
The short answer is that ignoring a defect creates a double risk: the damage expands, and the cost burden reverses. This framing is itself somewhat Japan-specific. Where a US tenant might weigh whether a problem rises to the level of “uninhabitable,” the Japanese concern is subtler—a small, tolerable fault today can quietly convert a landlord’s liability into a tenant’s liability tomorrow. For example, if a minor water leak is left for several months, it can damage the flooring material and even the subfloor, widening the scope of the repair. Worse, at move-out the restoration process may treat the damage as having “occurred or spread during occupancy,” so a defect that was originally the landlord’s responsibility gets reassigned to the tenant.
A tenant in Japan carries a duty to use and manage the rented unit appropriately, known as zenkan chūi gimu (善管注意義務, the “duty of care of a prudent manager”—a good-faith standard of care that has no exact one-word equivalent in US leases but is roughly comparable to a tenant’s common-law duty not to commit waste). If a tenant knows of a defect, fails to report it, and allows it to worsen, the tenant may be held to have breached this duty. That is precisely why notifying and documenting the moment you notice a problem becomes the fork in the road that determines who bears the cost later. For more detail, see also What is the duty of care? Preventing breach risk in rental management.
Who pays for each type of defect?
Who bears the cost is decided by “what caused it.” The basic principle is that natural faults in the building itself or its equipment fall on the landlord, while damage arising from how the tenant used the unit falls on the tenant. The table below summarizes representative cases. These are general guides only; the conclusion changes with the contract terms and the actual cause. Compared with many US markets—where an appliance such as a refrigerator may be the tenant’s own property and therefore the tenant’s problem—Japanese rentals typically come with landlord-owned fixtures such as a water heater and air conditioner, so their natural failure is usually the landlord’s repair.
| Type of defect / fault | Party responsible in principle | Reasoning / legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Structural elements (roof, columns, floor, beams) | Landlord | Repairs necessary for use are the lessor’s duty (Civil Code Article 606, paragraph 1) |
| Equipment breakdown (water heater, air conditioner, plumbing fixtures) | Landlord | Natural failure and age-related deterioration fall on the lessor; some contracts shift this to the tenant by special clause |
| Water leaks / rain leaks | Landlord | A repair related to maintaining the building; any expansion from being left unaddressed may be charged to the tenant |
| Termites / structural mold | Landlord | When it originates in a building-side defect, the lessor bears the cost in principle |
| Mold from unaddressed condensation | Tenant | When it stems from usage or upkeep, such as poor ventilation, it can fall on the tenant |
| Age-related deterioration / ordinary wear | Landlord | Wear arising from ordinary use falls on the lessor (MLIT guidelines) |
| Damage from the tenant’s intent or negligence | Tenant | Breakage from hitting objects, damage from leaving water unattended, and other wear beyond ordinary use |
Mold and water leaks are especially prone to disputes because the conclusion splits depending on whether the cause is a “building-side defect” or a “usage problem.” When the cause is hard to isolate, we recommend not reaching a conclusion on your own but asking the management company or a specialist contractor to investigate the cause. For the division of responsibility over equipment, What does a lessor actually do? A systematic guide to roles, obligations, and starting a rental business organizes the lessor’s duties.
How does the response flow proceed from discovery to resolution?
Handling a defect well means keeping to a sequence rather than emotionally rushing into repair work. The key is to “proceed through the landlord while leaving a record.” If a tenant arranges work on their own, they may be unable to bill the landlord for the cost, or may end up disadvantaged in the restoration settlement. This differs from the “repair and deduct” remedy familiar in some US states, where a tenant may lawfully fix a problem and subtract the cost from rent—in Japan, self-help is available but is hedged with a prior-notice requirement (explained below), so going straight to a contractor is risky.
| Stage | What to do | Record to keep |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Notify | Report promptly to the landlord or management company | Date, time, counterparty, and content of contact (email recommended) |
| 2. Document | Photograph the defective area and note the situation | Dated photographs and the time of occurrence |
| 3. Arrange contractors | Coordinate a specialist contractor through the landlord | Estimates and the agreed terms of the arrangement |
| 4. Repair | Carry out the work and confirm completion | Scope of work and completion photographs |
| 5. Negotiate reduction | Discuss a rent reduction for the period the unit was unusable | Period of non-use and the correspondence |
It is safest to convey urgent matters quickly by phone but always to leave a written record as well, such as by email. Being able to show objectively “when, where, what defect existed, and when you reported it” makes any later negotiation over the burden go smoothly. For the role of the management company and how to think about the contact channel, What is the role of a property management company? A management professional explains the work, company types, and how to choose one is a useful reference.
Can a defect found right after move-in be treated as pre-existing?
It is not unusual for defects to be overlooked at the move-in inspection and only come to light after you start living there. In this case, contacting the landlord promptly raises the likelihood that the defect is treated as pre-existing and repaired at the landlord’s cost. Conversely, the more time passes after discovery, the more easily it is suspected to be “damage that arose during occupancy.”
This is where move-in records pay off. Photographing the entire interior with a date stamp right after move-in, and noting existing scratches, stains, and faults, gives you material at move-out for separating “defects that existed before move-in” from “damage during occupancy.” In general, the more evidence you retain, the easier it is to avoid unnecessary cost. For the management company too, thorough move-in checklists and photo records, a system that makes it easy to receive reports, and a mechanism for prompt contractor dispatch are the basics that reduce later trouble. This diligence around a documented handover is, for foreign investors, one of the quieter markers of Japanese management quality that supports a property’s long-term positioning.
How does the Civil Code define the landlord’s (lessor’s) repair obligation?
The burden over rental-property defects is governed by several basic rules in the Civil Code (民法, Minpō, Japan’s national code of private law—so, unlike the US patchwork of state landlord-tenant statutes and case law, these rules apply uniformly nationwide). Here we organize the key points of the provisions. Because how a rule applies changes case by case, make specific judgments based on the contract and the actual situation.
First, the lessor’s repair obligation. Civil Code Article 606, paragraph 1 provides that the lessor “bears the obligation to make repairs necessary for the use and profit of the leased property.” However, this does not apply when the need for repair arises from a cause attributable to the tenant. In other words, natural faults in the building and equipment fall in principle on the landlord, while what the tenant broke falls on the tenant.
Next, the case where the tenant may make repairs themselves. Article 607-2, newly established in the reform that took effect in April 2020, expressly states that when repair is necessary and (1) the tenant has notified the lessor or the lessor has become aware of the need but does not repair within a reasonable period, or (2) there is an urgent circumstance, the tenant may carry out the repair. Because of this provision, the sequence of “notify first” is also important in practice—a notable contrast with US “repair-and-deduct” rules, which likewise require notice and a reasonable cure period but vary widely by jurisdiction.
Further, Civil Code Article 611, paragraph 1 provides that when part of the leased property becomes unusable for a reason not attributable to the tenant, the rent is reduced “in proportion to the portion that has become unusable” as a matter of course. Before the reform a request for reduction was required, but under current law the reduction is automatic. In addition, paragraph 2 of the same article provides that when the remaining usable portion alone cannot achieve the purpose of the lease, the tenant may terminate the contract. Please confirm the exact text of the provisions at e-Gov Law Search (Civil Code / 民法).
How far can you go when the landlord will not make repairs?
Even when the landlord refuses to repair without a legitimate reason, jumping straight to termination or self-help work is not a good move. The basic approach is to proceed in stages while keeping records. The following organizes the general response stages; how far you can actually go depends on the case.
| Stage | Content | Basis / points to note |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Formal demand (催告, saikoku) | Set a reasonable period and request the repair in writing | The premise for later procedures; content-certified mail (内容証明) can be effective |
| 2. Self-repair | If there is no response within the period, the tenant makes the repair | Civil Code Article 607-2; reimbursement of cost is considered separately |
| 3. Rent reduction | Seek a reduction proportional to the unusable portion | Civil Code Article 611, paragraph 1; the proportion is set by negotiation or expert advice |
| 4. Contract termination | Consider termination when the purpose cannot be achieved | Civil Code Article 611, paragraph 2; judge the requirements carefully |
| 5. Consultation desk | Consult a Consumer Affairs Center or a lawyer | Turn to a third party before things escalate; nationwide number 188 |
The proportion of a rent reduction and whether termination is permitted are not things a layperson can settle. When the amount is large, when health or safety is involved, or when the discussion has broken down, consult a Consumer Affairs Center (消費生活センター, shōhi seikatsu center—publicly run local consumer-advice offices reachable through the Consumer Hotline 188) or a specialist such as a lawyer early. For international readers, this is a useful analogue to a US state or local consumer-protection agency, offering a low-cost path before litigation. The approach to preventing trouble by using consultation desks is also explained in Rental-management practice that reduces Consumer Center consultations: preventing deposit-return and restoration disputes.
At move-out, how is the line drawn between ordinary wear and the tenant’s burden?
The most dispute-prone part of the move-out burden is the scope of restoration to original condition (原状回復, genjō-kaifuku). The basic idea is simple: stains and scratches that arise naturally from ordinary living (ordinary wear and age-related deterioration) fall on the landlord, while the tenant’s intent or negligence and wear beyond ordinary use fall on the tenant. In practice this line is drawn using the MLIT publication “Troubles and Guidelines over Restoration to Original Condition” (原状回復をめぐるトラブルとガイドライン). For readers used to a US-style security deposit, the important contrast is that Japanese practice presumes ordinary wear is the landlord’s cost—a landlord generally cannot deduct routine repainting or aging from a deposit unless a valid special clause shifts it.
| Example of condition | Party responsible in principle |
|---|---|
| Discoloration of wallpaper from sunlight; dents from furniture placement | Landlord (ordinary wear) |
| Pinhole-level holes in the wall that do not reach the base material | Landlord (ordinary wear) |
| Wall mold and stains expanded by leaving condensation unaddressed | Tenant (breach of the duty of care) |
| Tobacco tar and odor; nail holes reaching the base material | Tenant (wear beyond ordinary use) |
The guidelines set out the view that, to impose ordinary wear on the tenant, a clear special clause in the contract and the tenant’s agreement are required. For a detailed treatment of how the burden is divided, see What are wear and age-related deterioration? A management company thoroughly explains move-out restoration costs together with the MLIT (国土交通省, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) publication “Troubles and Guidelines over Restoration to Original Condition”. Reporting and documenting a defect during occupancy early is what gives you the material at move-out to separate “defects that existed before move-in” from “damage during occupancy.”
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q. Who bears defects in walls or the ceiling?
A. Defects in walls, ceilings, and floors due to age-related deterioration are in principle the landlord’s cost. However, if you knew of a defect, left it, and allowed it to worsen, you may be held liable as a breach of the duty of care (善管注意義務). Early reporting the moment you notice it is important.
Q. How should I contact the landlord?
A. If there is a management company, first tell them by phone and also leave a record in writing, such as an email. Attaching dated photographs conveys the situation accurately and serves as evidence in any later negotiation over the burden. The basic rule is to keep a record of the date, time, and content of your contact.
Q. If the air conditioner or water heater breaks down, may the tenant repair it?
A. In principle you arrange it through the landlord. Because naturally failing equipment is in principle the landlord’s cost, repairing or replacing it on your own may leave you unable to claim the expense. That said, if there is no response within a reasonable period after notice, or there is an urgent circumstance, Civil Code Article 607-2 leaves room for the tenant to make the repair.
Q. What happens to the rent for the period the unit was unusable during repairs?
A. When part of the unit becomes unusable for a reason not attributable to the tenant, Civil Code Article 611, paragraph 1 automatically reduces the rent in proportion to the unusable portion. The proportion of the reduction is generally set by negotiation; if it is hard to calculate, consult a specialist.
Q. Where can I turn when the landlord simply will not make repairs?
A. First give a formal written demand setting a reasonable period, and if there is still no movement, consider consulting a Consumer Affairs Center (Consumer Hotline 188) or a lawyer. The more serious the situation—involving health or safety, or a large amount—the more we recommend turning to a third party before it escalates.
Recommended related reading
- Move-out restoration costs: market rates and the burden rules and practical handling a management company should know
- What are wear and age-related deterioration? A management company thoroughly explains move-out restoration costs
- Rental-management practice that reduces Consumer Center consultations: preventing deposit-return and restoration disputes
