of the lessee, whether or not it reduces the rent. But according to their analogy with a defect in a sold item, a defect is that which reduces the rent. Thus, if he finds it defective, the author says: “He has the right to terminate [the lease], but he must pay the rent for the period that has passed.” The pronoun in “he has” refers to the lessee, and “termination” means termination of the lease. “But he must pay the rent for the period that has passed,” because he has received the usufruct for that elapsed period and must therefore provide its compensation.

May he retain it in return for a price reduction? That is, may he say: “I will put up with the defect it has, but I want the difference between its rent when sound and its rent when defective”? Does he have this right? The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that he does not, and that he is not given a choice. Rather, he is told: either take it with its defect, or leave it, in which case the lease is terminated. This is the established position of the school.

It was also said that he is entitled to a price reduction, by analogy with a defect in a sold item. The stronger view is that he is not entitled to a price reduction. Indeed, regarding a defect in a sold item, we have previously mentioned that Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, held that a price reduction is a new exchange transaction, to which no one may be compelled except with his consent.

This applies when the lessor has not deceptively concealed the defect. If, however, he has done so, then according to the sound view he is entitled to none of the rent, because he has deceived the lessee. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever deceives us is not of us.” (1) He is also a wrongdoer, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “No wrongful claimant has a right [to what he claims].” (2)