The somewhat comprehensive import of the word 'repair ' in this context is evident from the reliance by Forbes J. in Ravenseft Properties Ltd. vs Davstone (Holdings) Ltd., [1980] Q.B. 12 on the following observations of Sir Herbert Cozens Herdy MR in Lurcott 's case (supra): "It seems to me that we should be narrowing in a most dangerous way the limit and extent of these covenants if we did not hold that the defendants were liable under covenants framed as these are to make good the cost of repairing this wall in the only sense in which it can be repaired, namely, by re building it according to the requirements of the county council." Having regard to somewhat comprehensive nature of the obligations that go with and are attached to and recognised under the tenant 's covenants for 'repairs ', it must be held that the covenant in the present case is one under which the tenant has undertaken 'substantial repairs ' and it must, accordingly, be held to fall within Section 24(1)(i)(b) of the Act and that the allowance for repairs must be one under, and limited to, that provision.