It was also mentioned earlier that if the lessor of an endowment dies, the lease is terminated when the lessor is the beneficiary of the endowment by virtue of the original entitlement. We previously discussed the difference of opinion on this issue and noted that the established practice is that a lease of endowment property is not terminated.

His statement, “nor by the loss of the lessee’s maintenance or the like”: for example, a person rents a shop in order to sell merchandise in it, and the merchandise is destroyed by fire. The author says that the lease is not terminated, and that the person whose property was burned must pay the rent; for if he himself no longer benefits from the shop, he can sublet it. Moreover, rental prices may have risen since then. Therefore, the lease is not terminated by the destruction of the shop tenant’s merchandise.

Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, held that it is terminated, because this is an unavoidable excuse: the shop may or may not be rented out. He analogized it to the remission granted for losses caused by calamities, for the Prophet ﷺ said: “If you sell fruit to your brother and it is struck by a calamity, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. By what right would you take your brother’s wealth?” (1)

The man whose merchandise was burned has not received the usufruct, since the usufruct in a lease accrues little by little. He has not received it, and it has become impossible for him to receive it due to something beyond his control. He is therefore like fruit struck by a calamity. Shaykh al-Islam’s view, may Allah have mercy on him, is more correct, especially if the lessor knows that the tenant rented the premises solely to sell this merchandise which was burned. But if he does not know—for example, if someone comes and rents the shop from him without saying anything—then the author’s view, may Allah have mercy on him, that the lease is not terminated may have some force, because the lessor was unaware.