the outlet for its water, is the same as the ruling on the house's sewage drain. If the lease expires and there is manure or refuse in the house resulting from the actions of the dweller, he is responsible for removing it. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y).

Section: If it is stipulated upon the lessee of the bathhouse, or others, that the duration of its suspension from operation is his responsibility, this is not valid; for it is not permissible to lease it for a period where utilization is not possible during some of it, nor is it permissible to stipulate that he will make up for that amount after the expiration of his lease period, because this leads to the termination of the lease period being unknown. If he leaves it absolute (unconditioned) and it becomes suspended from operation, this is an emergent defect, and the lessee has the choice between retaining it for the full rent or rescinding the lease. It is inferred that he is entitled to the compensation for the defect (arsh al-ayb) by analogy to the defective sold object. If he was unaware of the defect until the lease period expired, he is responsible for the entire rent, because he has received what was contracted for, resembling the case where one learns of a defect after the contract and accepts it. It is also inferred that he is entitled to the compensation for the defect, just as if he had purchased a defective object and did not learn of its defect until he had consumed it or it perished in his possession.

Section: If it is stipulated that the expenditures on the property—specifically the expenditures mandatory for the lessor, such as the maintenance of the bathhouse—are to be borne by the lessee, the condition is void; for the property is owned by the lessor, so its expenditures are his responsibility. If he spends based on this (stipulation), he may offset it against the lessor, because he spent on his property under a condition of compensation. If they disagree on the amount spent, the statement of the lessor is to be accepted because he is the denier. If he did not stipulate it, but granted him permission to spend so that it could be offset against the rent, and he did so, then they disagreed, the statement of the lessor is also to be accepted. If he spent without his permission, he cannot reclaim anything, because he spent on his property without his permission for an expenditure that is not mandatory for the owner, resembling the case of someone who repairs another house belonging to him.