Is a clause making the tenant pay for normal wear and tear valid?
Whether a Japanese lease clause shifting ordinary wear and tear onto the tenant actually holds up, under the MLIT restoration guideline — and when such a clause is treated as void.
更新: 2026-06-13
At move-out in Japan, tenants are sometimes charged for ordinary wear and tear — furniture dents, sun-faded wallpaper — on the grounds that the lease says "the tenant bears normal wear and tear too." This guide explains, based on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) restoration guideline, whether that kind of clause is actually enforceable.
Bottom line: not automatically void, but often unenforceable
A restoration clause that pushes normal wear and tear onto the tenant is not void on its face. But because wear and tear is, by default, the landlord's burden, the bar for such a clause to hold up is high. To be valid, the clause generally must spell out the scope and amount clearly in the contract, the tenant must have knowingly agreed to it, and the burden must not be excessive.
A one-line "tenant bears restoration costs" with no specifics, or a clause signed without any explanation, tends to fail these tests and be treated as void.
Before giving up because a clause exists, check whether the clause itself is valid. Use the checker below to estimate where your case stands.