He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:
An emir took over a land grant and found a farmer renting the land. The farmer remained its tenant until the grant expired, after which it passed to someone else. The new grantee found that the farmer had left some of the rented land fallow. He demanded from the former grantee the revenue due on the fallow land, claiming that the lease drawn up for the farmer was invalid because part of the land was occupied. Is the lease invalid or valid? Is the tenant liable for the fallow land or not?
He replied:
The second grantee has no right to demand payment from the former grantee for the land left fallow, just as he has no right to demand payment from him for the land cultivated. His claim lies against the tenant to whom the land was leased and handed over, whether he cultivated it or not. The grantee, however, has a choice: he may demand the rent accepted by the first grantee, or he may demand the fair rental value of the use made available to the tenant.
It is permissible to lease land to someone who will grow crops and cane on it. The second grantee, however, may either uphold the lease or decline to uphold it. Even supposing that the first grantee had leased it to the tenant under an invalid lease and handed over the land before the second grantee received his grant, the tenant would owe compensation for all the land to the grantee