In the case of Nixon v. Gammon, 191 Ky. 175, 229 S. W. 75, we pointed out how at common law the landlord unless by his lease he expressly agreed to repair the demised premises or to restore them wholly or' partially in case they were destroyed by fire was under no obligation to do so. We also stated how at common law it was the duty of the tenant, despite such destruction by fire, to pay the agreed rental for the term-of the lease. We further remarked how section 2297 of the Statutes was passed to relieve the tenant from having to pay, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, the rent, if the demised premises were destroyed by fire. In the Nixon case, there had been a partial destruction of the premises by fire, and it was sought to throw the duty on the landlord of repairing or replacing the premises in the condition they were prior to the fire on account of a covenant imthe lease by which the landlord agreed to stand the expense of needed “extraordinary repairs.” We-declined to put such duty upon the landlord, holding that, as the lessor is under no general obligation to repair or replace the premises, his covenants to repair, if any are expressly made, must not be enlarged beyond their reasonable and fair intent, and that, as the building could not be made whole without rebuilding it wholly or substantially, he was under no obligation to do so, despite his covenant to make extraordinary repairs. In the lease contract under consideration here, there was no express obligation at all on the part of the landlord to do any repairing of ap.y character or description, or to replace or rebuild the building if damaged or destroyed by fire. Appellant seeks to spell out such an agreement from the negative covenant which we have copied from the lease. But it is plain that this covenant only meant that, if the landlord of his own volition decided to rebuild or replace the premises destroyed by fire, then the tenant was not to be entirely discharged from the lease, as he would otherwise have been by section 2297 of the' Statutes, but only to be discharged from having to pay rent while the building was being replaced. This covenant, however, did not put any duty on the part of the landlord to rebuild the premises unless he elected to do so. In Woodside, Agent, v. Talley, 135 Ga. 337, 69 S. E. 492, the tenant sued his landlord for damages on account of the landlord’s failure to repair or restore the demised premises which had been *830 injured by fire. The lease, among other things, provided :