Section: The second division is that something occurs to the object that prevents its use, such as a house that collapses, land that is flooded, or its water supply being cut off. This is to be examined: if no benefit remains in it at all, it is exactly the same as if it were destroyed. If some benefit remains other than that for which it was rented—such as the possibility of using the vacant site of the house or land for storing firewood, pitching a tent on land rented for cultivation, or fishing from land that has been flooded—the lease is also rescinded, because the benefit upon which the contract was concluded has perished, thus the lease is rescinded, just as if one rented an animal to ride, and it became lame such that it is only fit to turn a mill. Al-Qadi said regarding land whose water supply is cut off: The lease is not rescinded. This is the explicit position of al-Shafi'i, because the benefit has not vanished entirely, as it is possible to make use of the site of the land by pitching a tent or gathering firewood on it; thus, it resembles the situation where its benefit is reduced while still remaining. Based on this, the lessee is given the choice between rescinding and upholding the contract. If he rescinds, its ruling is the ruling of a slave if he dies. If he chooses to uphold the contract, he owes the full rent because that is a defect, and if he is satisfied with it, its ruling falls. If he does not choose to rescind or uphold—either due to his ignorance that he has the right to rescind or for another reason—he has the right to rescind thereafter. The first position is more correct, because the survival of something other than what was contracted for does not prevent the rescission of the contract due to the destruction of the contracted object, just as in a sale. If the remaining benefit in the objects was such that its utilization is not permitted by the contract—such as an animal he rented for riding, and it became fit only for carrying, or vice versa—the contract is rescinded in all circumstances, because one does not own the right to utilize the remaining benefit while it is in good condition, so he does not own it while it is defective, just as in the case of selling it. As for if it is possible to make use of the object for the purpose it was rented for, but with a degree of deficiency—such as if it were possible for him to cultivate the land without water, or if the water recedes from the land that was flooded in a way that prevents some cultivation or spoils the crop, or if it were possible for him to dwell in the courtyard of the house, either in a tent or