His statement, “and the canal,” refers to the pipe. That is, if these two have a pipe running from a river or a well, and it falls into disrepair, then if one of them asks the other to repair it, he is obliged to do so.

To summarize:

First: the one who refuses to repair something defective may be compelled to do so.

Second: no one may be compelled to undertake an improvement, unless the one seeking the repair undertakes to bear the expense and there is no harm to the other party; in that case, he may be compelled.

Third: if he wishes to replace it with something equivalent, he may not be compelled under any circumstances, even if the other party undertakes the expense. For example, he may wish to replace the wall with materials equivalent to the original ones, but make it white instead of black, or red instead of white, and the like. He cannot be compelled, because there is no benefit in this.

It says in al-Rawd (1): “The owner of an upper storey is not obliged to rebuild its lower storey if it collapses; rather, its owner may be compelled to do so.” This is readily conceivable: one person may purchase the upper dwellings and another the lower dwellings. If the lower storey collapses, the upper one will also collapse. Thus, the owner of the upper storey says to the owner of the lower storey, “Rebuild it.” The latter replies, “No; rather, I will move elsewhere.” In that case, the owner of the lower storey is compelled, and we say to him: “If you do not want it, then erect the columns, beams, and roof, for you are its owner.”

If the owner says, “You may have the land; I do not want it, and I will not rebuild it. You build upon the land,” then we must consider which is preferable: residing above or below. The upper storey is preferable in several respects. Therefore, so long as the lower storey is not categorically better, the owner of the upper storey cannot be compelled; rather, it depends upon his consent. If he agrees, then so be it; otherwise, he has the right