Takahana Sushi, a Japanese restaurant, rented its premises from Gunnar Schultz. The contract signed by the parties was very brief. For our purposes, these are the relevant provisions:

• Schultz promises to provide Takahana with quiet possession.
• Takahana shall pay an annual rent of $36 000, payable monthly in equal instalments.
• This lease shall be for a single fixed term of 10 years.

Three months after taking possession of the premises, Takahana was informed by a public health inspector that the property was unfit for use as a restaurant because the plumbing in the toilets was defective. The cost of the necessary replacement was about $50 000. Takahana asked Schultz to make the necessary repairs. Schultz, however, refused because the lease did not require him to make repairs. He expressed some sympathy for Takahana's position, and indicated that he would not object if the tenant replaced the defective plumbing. He also insisted, however, that he was entitled to full rent for the remainder of the 10-year term. At that point, Takahana left the premises, relocated to a new building, and refused to continue paying rent to Schultz. Which party will prevail in this dispute? Explain your answer.