Is a lease contract (Ijarah) unilaterally terminable by either party?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Leasing
Primary text
The lease contract is binding upon both parties, meaning neither party has the right to unilaterally dissolve it. This opinion is held by Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and the Companions of Al-Ra'y (Hanafi school). The evidence for this is that it is a contract of exchange, making it binding, similar to a sale. Furthermore, it is considered a type of sale, although it is given a specific name, just as exchange (Sarf) and advance sale (Salam) have specific names. This applies whether the party has a valid excuse or not. This position is affirmed by Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. If the lessee dissolves the contract after its commencement and voluntarily ceases to benefit from the leased item, the contract is not voided, and the rent remains obligatory upon him, analogous to when one purchases an item, takes possession, and then abandons it. When Imam Ahmad was questioned regarding a man who rented a camel and then requested dissolution upon arrival in Madinah, he stated this was not permissible, as the rent became obligatory. Similarly, if the renter became ill in Madinah, no right to dissolution was granted because the contract is binding on both parties, and neither can dissolve it.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifah and his companions permit the lessee to dissolve the contract due to a personal impediment, such as renting a camel for Hajj and then falling ill preventing travel, the loss of necessary expenses, or the destruction of merchandise if a shop was rented for selling cloth. This permission is granted because such an excuse makes the fulfillment of the contracted benefit impossible, granting the right to dissolution, similar to when a hired slave deserts (ibaq). However, the primary proof against this view notes that since dissolution is not permitted when the benefit has been utilized without excuse, it should not be permitted for an excuse related to something other than the contracted object, similar to a sale. Moreover, if dissolution were permitted due to the lessee's excuse, it would logically have to be permitted due to the lessor's excuse for parity between the contractors, which is not the case.