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

- Ivan promises to provide Nakamoto Sushi with quiet possession.

- Nakamoto Sushi shall pay an annual rent of $45 000, payable monthly in equal installments.

- This lease shall be for a single fixed term of 10 years.

Three months after taking possession of the premises, Nakamoto 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. Nakamoto asked Ivan to make necessary repairs. Ivan, however, refused because the lease did not require him to make repairs. He expressed some sympathy for Nakamoto's possession, 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, Nakamoto left premises, relocated to a new building, and refused to continue paying rent to Ivan.

Which party will prevail in this dispute? Explain your answer.