What is the ruling if someone leases land to plant barley but plants wheat instead?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Leasing
Primary text
Ahmad, in one narration, ruled that the measure of deterioration caused to the land by wheat compared to barley should be calculated, and the landowner compensated for that difference. This equates the situation to hiring for a distance and exceeding it, requiring the agreed rent and the going rate for the excess benefit derived (the wheat). The rationale is that specifying barley did not mean the contract was tied to its specific essence; the lessee fulfilled his right (planting) and added a benefit (the more damaging wheat), analogous to exceeding a stipulated distance.
Supporting text
Abu Bakr stated that the landowner is due only the going rate (ujr al-mithl) because the lessee deviated from the contracted item (barley for wheat). Al-Shafi'i offers the lessee the choice between taking the original rent plus compensation for the land's decrease from what barley would have caused, or taking the going rate for the land as planted with wheat, as the issue shares traits from both exceeding distance and planting something else.