the owner equal to the amount stipulated in the contract, nothing would be owed by the lessee, and if there were any surplus, the owner would be obligated to pay it to the lessee. The first view is preferable, and it is the apparent position of the Shafi'i school. If the owner disposes of it before delivery of the object, or refuses to deliver it until the lease term has expired, the lease is rescinded in every respect; because the contracting party has destroyed the object of the contract before its delivery, so the contract is rescinded, just as if he had sold him food and destroyed it before delivery. If he delivers it to him during the term, it is rescinded for the past, and the rent for the remainder is due proportionally, like a sold item if part is delivered and part is destroyed.
895 - Issue: He said: "If the owner removes him before the period expires, he is not entitled to rent for the period he resided in it."
Meaning, if he leases a property for a term, resides in it for part of the term, and then the owner evicts him and prevents him from completing the residence, he is not entitled to any of the rent. The majority of jurists say: He is entitled to rent for the period he resided, because he utilized the property of another by way of exchange, so he is liable for its compensation, like a sold item if he utilizes part of it and the owner prevents him from the remainder, and like the case if the fulfillment of the remainder becomes impossible due to an overwhelming circumstance (amr ghalib). Our position is that he did not deliver to him what the lease was contracted upon, so he is not entitled to anything, just as if he had leased him to carry a book [to a location], and he carried it for part of the way, or leased him to dig twenty cubits, and he dug ten and refused to dig the rest. An analogy of a lease to a lease is more appropriate than an analogy to a sale. It differs from the case where he refuses due to an overwhelming circumstance, because in that case, there is an excuse. The ruling is the same for someone who hires a riding animal, and the lessor refuses
(5) In B, M: "tasallum" (delivery). (6) Omitted from: the original. (1) In the original: "ajruhu" (his rent). (2) In B, M: "kama" (just as). (3) Omitted from: B, M. (4) Omitted from: M.
المالِكِ بِقَدْرِ المُسَمَّى في العَقْدِ، لم يَجِبْ على المُسْتَأْجِرِ شيءٌ، وإن فَضَلَتْ منه فَضْلةٌ، لَزِمَ المالِكَ أداؤُها إلى المُسْتَأْجِرِ، والأَوَّلُ أَوْلَى، وهو ظاهِرُ مذهبِ الشافِعِىِّ، وإن تَصَرَّفَ المالِكُ قبل تَسْلِيمِ (٥) العَيْنِ، أو امْتَنَعَ من تَسْلِيمِها حتى انْقَضَتْ مُدّةُ الإِجَارةِ، انْفَسَخَتِ الإِجَارَةُ، وَجْهًا واحِدًا؛ لأنَّ العاقِدَ قد (٦) أتْلَفَ المَعْقُودَ عليه قبلَ تَسْلِيمهِ، فانْفَسَخَ العَقْدُ، كما لو باعَهُ طَعامًا فأتْلَفَه قبلَ تَسْلِيمِه. وإن سَلَّمَها إليه في أثْناء المُدّةِ، انْفَسَخَتْ فيما مَضَى، ويَجِبُ أجْرُ الباقِى بالحِصَّةِ، كالمَبِيعِ إذا سَلَّمَ بعضَه وأتْلَفَ بعضًا.
٨٩٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (فَإنْ حَوَّلَهُ الْمَالِكُ قَبْلَ تَقَضِّى المُدّةِ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ أجْرٌ (١) لِمَا سَكَنَ)
يَعْنِى إذا اسْتَأْجَرَ عَقَارًا مُدّةً، فسَكَنَه بعضَ المُدّةِ، ثم أخْرَجَهُ المالِكُ، ومَنَعَه تَمامَ السُّكْنَى، فلا شىءَ له من الأُجْرَةِ. وقال أكثرُ الفُقَهاءِ: له أجْرُ ما سَكَنَ؛ لأنَّه اسْتَوْفَى مِلْكَ غيره على سَبِيلِ المُعَاوَضةِ، فلَزِمَه عِوَضُه كالمَبِيعِ إذا اسْتَوْفَى بعضَه، ومَنَعَه المالِكُ بَقِيَّتَه، وكما (٢) لو تَعَذَّرَ اسْتِيفاءُ الباقِى لأمْرٍ غالِبٍ. ولَنا، أنَّه لم يُسَلِّمْ إليه ما عَقَدَ الإِجارَةَ عليه، فلم يَسْتَحِقَّ شَيْئًا، كما لو اسْتَأْجَرَه لِيَحْمِلَ له (٣) كِتابًا [إلى مَوْضِعٍ] (٤)، فحَمَلَه بعضَ الطرَّيقِ، أو اسْتَأْجَرَه لِيَحْفِرَ له عِشْرِينَ ذِرَاعًا. فحَفَرَ له عَشْرًا، وامْتَنَعَ من حَفْرِ الباقِى. وقِياسُ الإِجَارةِ على الإِجَارَةِ أَوْلَى مِن قِيَاسِها على البَيْعِ. ويُفَارِقُ ما إذا امْتَنَعَ لأمْرٍ غالبٍ؛ لأنَّ له عُذْرًا. والحُكْمُ في مَن اكْتَرَى دَابّةً، فامْتَنَعَ المُكْرِى من
(٥) في ب، م: "تسلم".(٦) سقط من: الأصل.(١) في الأصل: "أجره".(٢) في ب، م: "كما".(٣) سقط من: ب، م.(٤) سقط من: م.