or otherwise, the lease is not rescinded; because the benefit contracted for has not vanished entirely, so it resembles the situation where it becomes defective. The lessee has the option of rescission, as we have mentioned, except in the case of a house if it collapses, for regarding that there are two views: one is that the lease is not rescinded, and the second is that it is rescinded because its designation (name) ceases to exist by its demolition, and the benefit intended from it is gone; and for that reason, no one rents the vacant site of a house to live in it. As for if the occurrence in the object does not harm it, such as the flooding of land with water that recedes in a short time, which does not prevent cultivation and does not harm it, or the cutting off of water from it when the lessor provides it with water from another place, or if its cutting off is at a time when there is no need for it, the lessee does not have the right to rescind because this is not a defect. If harmful flooding occurs, or the water is cut off, or part of the leased object collapses, then that part has its own ruling regarding rescission or the establishment of the option, and the lessee has the option regarding keeping the [remainder of the] object, because the transaction has been split for him. If he chooses to retain it, he retains it with a proportional reduction of the rent, just as if one of two qafizes of food perished in the hand of the seller.

Section: The third division is that the leased object is usurped. The lessee has the right to rescind because this involves a delay in his right. If he rescinds, the ruling is the same as if the contract was rescinded due to the destruction of the object, identical in all respects. If he does not rescind until the lease period expires, he has the option between rescinding and returning for the specified rent, or remaining with the contract and demanding the usurper for the fair rental value (ajr al-mithl), because the contracted object did not vanish entirely, but rather to a substitute, which is its value; thus, it resembles the case where a person destroys sold fruit before it is plucked. It is also deduced that the contract is rescinded in all circumstances, based on the narration which states that the benefits of usurpation are not guaranteed (daman), which is the position of the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y). The scholars of al-Shafi'i have a difference of opinion regarding this.