What is the ruling regarding a leased property where an occurrence prevents its intended use?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Leasing
Primary text
If an occurrence renders the leased object entirely useless, such as a demolished house or flooded land where the water recedes, the lease contract is void, treating the object as completely destroyed. If some utility remains, but not the utility contracted for—such as using the space for storing wood or pitching a tent on land leased for farming, or fishing on flooded land—the lease is also voided because the specific benefit contracted for has perished. This follows the principle applied when a beast hired for riding becomes fit only for turning a millstone. The sounder position is that the lease is voided because the remaining benefit, which was not the subject of the contract, does not prevent the voiding of the contract due to the destruction of the contracted benefit, analogous to the situation in a sale.
Supporting text
The opinion of Al-Qadi, followed by the explicit statement of Al-Shafi'i regarding land whose water source is cut off, is that the lease does not void because the benefit is not entirely nullified; one can still utilize the vacant land for pitching a tent or gathering wood. Under this view, the lessee has the choice between nullification (faskh) or upholding (imda). If upholding, the full rent is due because it constitutes a defect that the lessee accepted. If the lessee neither voids nor upholds, they retain the right to void later.