is it lawful for the owner to demand a stipulated rent from them; they owe only the fair rental value.

If the lessor is the trustee of an endowment or the guardian of an orphan, allowing them to remain when he could evict them constitutes injustice and transgression on his part. This impugns his integrity and his authority to act in that capacity.

If, however, they occupy the premises according to the customary practice of tenants—for example, someone approaches the owner and says, “Lease me such-and-such premises for such-and-such an amount,” and the owner replies, “Go and have your agreement witnessed”—then the tenant, but not the lessor, has witnesses attest to his undertaking, and the premises are handed over to him. When the occupant wishes to leave, the owner does not allow him to do so. This constitutes a valid lease under Islamic law.

Whoever says, “This is not a valid lease under Islamic law; the occupant may not leave without the owner’s permission, yet the owner may evict him whenever he wishes,” has contradicted the consensus of the Muslims. If the lease is valid under Islamic law, it is binding on both parties; if it is invalid, it is invalid for both parties. Whoever makes it binding on the tenant but terminable at will by the lessor has contradicted the consensus of the Muslims.

If the lessor is the trustee of an endowment or an orphan’s property, hands the premises over to the occupant, instructs him to have a lease drawn up recording his obligations, and demands both the lease document and the stipulated rent, yet says, “I have not granted him a valid lease under Islamic law,” this impugns his integrity and his authority to act in that capacity. For the jurists hold two views concerning a valid lease under Islamic law: