The Official Website of the Office of His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Husseini Al-Sistani

Books » Islamic Laws

Chapter fourteen » Sleeping Partnership (Muḍārabah) → ← Chapter thirteen » Conditions relating to the use of the property which is given on rent

Chapter thirteen » Miscellaneous rulings on hiring/renting

Ruling 2203. The property by which the lessee pays rent must be known. Therefore, if the property is something that is transacted by weight, such as wheat, then its weight must be known. If it is something that is transacted by count, such as modern currencies, its count must be known. And if it is something like horses and sheep, the lessor must either see them for himself or the lessee must describe their particulars to him.

Ruling 2204. If a person gives some land on rent for farming and sets its rent to be the produce of the very same land, or of another land, but the produce is non-existent at the moment, the rental agreement is not valid. The same applies [i.e. the rental agreement is not valid] if he sets the rent to be a general responsibility [on the lessee to pay] on condition that the rent is paid from the produce of the very same land. However, there is no objection if the produce is existent.

Ruling 2205. A person who has given something on rent cannot claim the rental payment before handing over the rented item. Similarly, if a person has been hired to perform a particular task, he cannot claim his fee before performing the task except in cases in which it is normal for the fee to be paid before performing the task, such as being hired to perform hajj.

Ruling 2206. Whenever a lessor hands over the leased item, the lessee must pay its rent even if he does not take possession of it [because, for example, he had gone away at that time,] or he does take possession of it but does not use it to the end of the rental period.

Ruling 2207. If a person is hired to perform a task on a particular day and he shows up to perform that task on that day, the person who hired him must pay him even if he chooses not to give that task to him. For example, if a person hires a tailor to stitch some clothes on a particular day and on that day the tailor is ready to perform that task, he must pay him his fee even if he does not give him the cloth from which to tailor the clothes, or the tailor remains without work that day, or he does his own or somebody else’s work.

Ruling 2208. If after the end of the rental period it becomes apparent that the rental agreement was invalid, the lessee must pay the owner of the property the standard rate for that property (ujrat al-mithl). For example, if a person gives a house on rent for a year for £10,000 and later finds out that the rental agreement was invalid, in the event that the rent for that house is normally £5,000, the lessee must pay him £5,000. And if the standard rate is £20,000, in the event that the lessor was the owner of the property or an agent who had the authority to specify the rent and who also knew the normal price of the house, it is not necessary for the lessee to pay more than £10,000; otherwise, he must pay £20,000. Furthermore, if after the passing of some of the rental period it becomes apparent that the rental agreement was invalid, the same rule (ḥukm) applies to the fee in relation to the period that has passed.

Ruling 2209. If the rented item is destroyed, the lessee will not be responsible (ḍāmin) for it as long as he was not negligent in safeguarding it nor excessive in using it. Similarly, if, for example, the cloth given to a tailor is destroyed, the tailor will not be responsible for it as long as he was neither negligent in taking care of it nor excessive in using it.

Ruling 2210. Whenever a hired person, such as a tailor or craftsman, wants to perform a task with the property of the hirer and he destroys the property that he takes, he is responsible for it.

Ruling 2211. If a butcher slaughters an animal in a manner that renders it unlawful [to consume], he must pay its value to the owner, regardless of whether he has taken a fee for slaughtering it or did it free of charge.

Ruling 2212. If a person hires an animal or a vehicle and specifies how much load he will place on it, in the event that he loads more than that amount and the animal or vehicle perishes or becomes defective, he is responsible for it. The same applies if he does not specify the amount of load but places a load on it that is more than normal. In both cases, he must also pay a greater rental fee than normal.

Ruling 2213. If a person gives an animal on hire for the purpose of carrying fragile goods, in the event that the animal slips or stampedes causing the load to break, the owner of the animal is not responsible for it. However, if the owner of the animal causes the animal to fall by beating it excessively or by doing something similar and this results in the goods breaking, then he is responsible.

Ruling 2214. If a person circumcises a baby and is negligent in doing so, or, if he makes a mistake – for example, he cuts more than the normal amount – and the baby dies or is harmed, he is responsible. However, if he is neither negligent nor makes a mistake and the baby dies or is harmed as a result of the act of circumcision itself, he is not responsible as long as he was not consulted to determine whether the baby would be harmed or not and he did not know that the baby would be harmed.

Ruling 2215. If a doctor himself gives some medicine to a patient or he recommends some medicine for him and the patient suffers harm or dies as a result of taking the medicine, the doctor is responsible even though he was not negligent in trying to cure the patient.

Ruling 2216. If a doctor says to a patient, ‘If you are harmed [by this medicine] I am not responsible’, in the event that he exercises due care and caution and the patient suffers harm or dies, the doctor is not responsible.

Ruling 2217. A lessee and a lessor can annul the lease agreement with each other’s consent. Moreover, if they stipulate a condition in the lease agreement that both of them, or one of them, has the right to annul the lease, they can annul the lease in accordance with their agreement.

Ruling 2218. If a lessor or a lessee realises that he has been cheated, in the event that at the time of concluding the rental agreement he was not aware that he was being cheated, he can annul the rental agreement as per the details mentioned in Ruling 2134. However, if they had stipulated a condition within the rental agreement that even if they are cheated they do not reserve the right to annul the transaction, then they cannot annul the rental agreement.

Ruling 2219. If a person gives something on rent and it is usurped by someone before he can hand it over, the lessee can annul the rental agreement and claim back the payment he gave to the lessor. He can also choose not to annul the rental agreement and instead claim back the rental fee from the usurper, based on the standard rate, for the period wherein the leased item was at the disposal of the usurper. Therefore, if he hires an animal for a month for £100 and someone usurps it for ten days and the usual hire fee for ten days is £150, he can claim £150 from the usurper.

Ruling 2220. If someone does not allow a lessee to take possession of the item he has leased, or, if after the lessee has taken possession of the item someone usurps it or prevents him from using it, the lessee cannot annul the rental agreement. Instead, he only reserves the right to claim the rental fee for the item from the usurper based on the standard rate.

Ruling 2221. If a lessor sells the property to the lessee before completion of the rental period, the lease is not nullified and the lessee must pay the rental fee. The same applies if he sells it to someone else.

Ruling 2222. If prior to the commencement of the rental period the rented item becomes unusable for the purpose for which it was rented, the rental agreement is rendered void (bāṭil) and the money that the lessee had paid the lessor must be refunded. And if the state of the item is such that the lessee can make use of only some of it, he can annul the rental agreement.

Ruling 2223. If a person hires something and after the passage of part of the lease period the item becomes unusable for the purpose for which it was hired, the lease for the remaining period is rendered void. The tenant can also annul the lease pertaining to the preceding period and pay for that period at the standard rate.

Ruling 2224. If a house that contains two rooms, for example, is given on rent and one of the rooms is destroyed, and if it were to be rebuilt in a normal manner it would be very different to the previous building, then the rule in this case is the same as was mentioned in the previous ruling. Otherwise, if the landlord immediately rebuilds it and none of its usability is lost, the rental agreement does not become invalid. Furthermore, the tenant cannot annul the rental agreement. However, if the rebuilding takes so long that a period of the tenant’s use of the property is lost, the rental agreement is void for that period. Additionally, the tenant can annul the rental agreement for the entire rental period and pay the standard rate for the period that he has used the property.

Ruling 2225. If the lessor or the lessee dies, the rental agreement does not become void. However, if [the house does not belong to the lessor and] only the usufruct of the house while he is alive belong to him – such as the case wherein someone else specifies in his will (waṣiyyah) that as long as he [i.e. the lessor] is alive, the usufruct of the house will belong to him – then, in the event that he gives the house on rent and dies before the end of the rental period, the lease is void from the time he dies. And if the current owner of the house endorses the rental agreement [for its remaining period], it is valid, and the rental fee for the period remaining after the death of the lessor belongs to the current owner.

Ruling 2226. If an employer appoints a contractor to recruit workers for him, in the event that the contractor pays the workers less than what he receives from the employer, it is unlawful for him to take the difference and he must return it to the employer. However, if he is hired to construct a building and he reserves the right to construct it himself or to subcontract the work to someone else, then in case he constructs part of it himself and subcontracts the rest to someone else for less than what he was hired for, it is lawful for him to take the difference.

Ruling 2227. If a person who dyes clothes agrees to dye a cloth with indigo, for example, in the event that he dyes it another colour, he does not reserve the right to claim any payment.

Chapter fourteen » Sleeping Partnership (Muḍārabah) → ← Chapter thirteen » Conditions relating to the use of the property which is given on rent
العربية فارسی اردو English Azərbaycan Türkçe Français