are they obliged to pay only for the portion of the aforementioned land that was irrigated? Or must they also pay for the portion that remained unirrigated, from which they derived no benefit and which they had not inspected?

He replied:

If the lessee has neither seen the land nor had it described to him, the lease is invalid according to the majority of scholars. Those who consider it valid grant the lessees the right to rescind it upon inspection. If it was described as being irrigated every year but was not irrigated, they may rescind the lease when the land proves contrary to the description and the condition stipulated for them.

Even if he leased it to them without qualification, and part of it was irrigated while another part was not, they would owe no rent for the unirrigated portion—even if the lease stated that it provided a resting place at midday and at night. Scholars regard leasing such unirrigated land for rest at midday and at night as invalid, because unirrigated land offers no such benefit: it is like any other open countryside with neither crops nor water. Such a benefit has no monetary value, nor would any value be assigned to it even if it existed—so how much more so when it is absent? A lease is valid only when it concerns an intended benefit. If something provides no benefit, or its benefit has no monetary value, the transaction is invalid. Likewise, it is invalid to lease something that provides no benefit for the purpose for which it was leased and whose supposed benefit has no monetary value.

This holds according to the view of those who uphold legal stratagems and do not invalidate them. The matter is clear to such a person, for he knows that the intended purpose of the contract is solely to benefit from cultivation; professing any other purpose is a lie and a deception.

Leasing land that is usually irrigated before it has been irrigated is permissible according to the imams. As for land that is irrigated only occasionally, there is disagreement.