Landlord and Tenant Obligations Regarding the Maintenance of the Leased Property under Iraqi and Iranian Law

Abstract

Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, the present study examines landlord and tenant obligations within the legal systems of Iran and Iraq. The findings indicate that, despite fundamental similarities in their jurisprudential foundations, significant differences exist in the manner in which these obligations are regulated and enforced. Influenced by both modern European legal systems and Islamic jurisprudence, the Iraqi Civil Code provides a clearer definition of necessary repairs in Article 750 and draws a precise distinction between repairs required to preserve the leased property from destruction and those necessary to ensure the intended use and benefit of the property. Furthermore, Article 751 distinguishes between total and partial destruction of the leased property, establishes specific legal remedies for each situation, and grants the tenant the option of either obtaining a reduction in rent or terminating the contract. By contrast, the Iranian Civil Code does not provide a precise criterion for distinguishing major repairs from minor repairs. One of the principal challenges within the Iranian legal system is the inconsistency between the Civil Code and the special laws governing landlord–tenant relations. Article 492 of the Iranian Civil Code adopts a sequential approach to remedies for a tenant’s breach of obligations, initially requiring the landlord to prevent the tenant from continuing the prohibited conduct, whereas the special laws adopt an alternative approach and directly recognize the landlord’s right to terminate the lease. Article 493 of the Iranian Civil Code holds the tenant liable in cases of transgression or negligence, even for defects or damage not directly caused by the tenant’s fault. This rule may be criticized from the perspective of the principles of civil liability, according to which the establishment of liability requires proof not only of fault but also of a causal relationship between the wrongful act and the resulting damage. Furthermore, the issue of contractual clauses imposing absolute liability on tenants—which are common in lease agreements in practice but conflict with the prevailing opinion of Imami jurists regarding the invalidity of such clauses—reveals a gap between legal theory and contractual practice. The comparative analysis further demonstrates that the Iraqi Civil Code, through its broad recognition of the principle of freedom of contract and its treatment of most relevant obligations as supplementary rather than mandatory rules, affords the contracting parties greater flexibility. In contrast, Iranian legislation, with the objective of protecting tenants as the weaker contractual party, imposes mandatory restrictions that may not be equally justifiable in commercial and industrial lease agreements.