by the lease, he has the option between rescinding and upholding the sale for the full price, because that is a defect and a deficiency.

Section: If the lessee buys it, the sale is also valid, for it is valid to sell it to someone else, so it is even more appropriate to sell it to him, because the object is in his hand. Does the lease become void? There are two views regarding this: One of them is that it does not become void, because he owned the benefit through one contract, and then owned the substance deprived of that benefit through another contract, so they do not contradict each other, just as one may own the fruit through one contract and then own the tree through another. If a legatee of the benefit leases the property to the owner of the substance, the lease is valid, which proves that ownership of the benefit does not contradict the contract over the substance. Similarly, if the owner leases the rented object from its lessee, it is permissible. Based on this, the rent remains upon the purchaser, and the price is upon him, and both accrue to the seller, just as if the purchaser were someone else. The second view is that the lease becomes void for the remainder of the duration, because he contracted for the benefit of the object, and the contractor's ownership of the object has ceased, like marriage; if he marries a slave woman and then buys her, his marriage becomes void. Furthermore, ownership of the substance prevents the inception of a lease, so it also prevents its continuation, like marriage. Based on this, the rent for the remainder of the lease duration drops for the purchaser, just as if the lease were voided by the destruction of the object. If the lessor had already collected the entire rent, the remaining rent is calculated for him against the price.

Section: If the lessee inherits the rented object, the ruling regarding it is the same as if he had bought it, in terms of the lease becoming void or remaining, except that there is no difference in the ruling between the rescission of the lease and its remaining. If a person leases a house from his father, then his father dies and leaves behind two sons, one of whom is the lessee, the house belongs to both of them in halves. The lessee has a stronger claim to it, because the lease remains valid for the half belonging to his brother, and he is entitled to the half he inherited, whether by right of ownership or by right of the lease, and the rent owed for it is shared between them in halves. If his father had already collected the rent, he does not have a claim for any part of it against his brother, nor against his father's estate, and what his father left behind is divided between them in halves; for if he were to claim anything back, it would lead to him having inherited a half along with its benefit, while his brother inherited a half deprived of the benefit, whereas Allah the Exalted has made them equal in inheritance. Furthermore, if he were to recover half of the rent for the half in which the lease was invalidated, it would necessitate that his brother should recover half of the benefit in which the lease was invalidated, since it is impossible to combine for him both the benefit and the taking of its compensation from another.