Section

This applies when he leases him the land and trees, or a tree alone, so that he may tend them and take the fruit in return for a specified payment.

If, however, he sells him only the fruit and leases him the land for residence, then only the first principle applies: the one mentioned on the authority of Ibn ʿAqīl and, in part, of Mālik and Ahmad according to one of the two reports, where residence is the predominant purpose. This principle is that there is a need to combine the two transactions. Combining them therefore permits what would not be permissible separately, as in the analogous cases discussed earlier. This applies when both residence and the fruit are intended benefits, as is customary in the orchards of Damascus. An orchard is leased for the summer so that the lessee may reside there and take its fruit without undertaking any work whatsoever to cultivate the fruit. Rather, that work falls on the lessor who undertakes to supply it.

On the basis of that principle, this is permissible even if the fruit has not yet appeared at all, whether it is of one kind or several different kinds, just as the corresponding arrangement is permissible in the first category. It is permissible only because it combines the fruit with the usufruct. In reality, it combines a sale and a lease, unlike the first category, which may be described as a lease. For here, the expense of supplying the fruit falls on the lessor, and the fruit is produced through his work;