of his companions, and it is not permissible to rent a house on the condition that the tenant must repair whatever becomes dilapidated unless a corresponding allowance is deducted from his rent—preferably with a clearly defined ceiling.
Any repair or construction the tenant carries out with the owner’s permission entitles him to its current value, to be settled when he wishes to vacate. If he makes such improvements without permission, he may remove them if that is feasible, but he is liable for any damage caused in the process. Should the landlord choose to pay him the item’s value once it has been taken out, Mālik allows it. Yet if the improvement brings the landlord no benefit, then, in Mālik’s view, the tenant has no claim at all.
Whoever rents a house or shop and receives possession of it is liable for the rent as the term passes—absent any contrary stipulation or local custom—whether he uses it or not. If an impediment arises that prevents him from living there, the matter is examined: if the obstacle is one he cannot repel, such as the ruler or a person beyond the reach of the courts, the rent is waived. Otherwise, if the landlord sells the property to the very tenant before the term ends and the sale is concluded, the lease is dissolved and the tenant resides in it by right of ownership. The landlord may also sell it to someone else, provided the buyer knows about the lease; if the buyer was unaware, the existing lease counts as a defect. Should he accept the defect, the sale stands; if not, he may rescind it.
A lease may not be annulled before its term expires except by mutual consent, and in all cases the accrued rent belongs to the seller, not to the purchaser—this is the distilled position of Mālik. It is also said that if the buyer accepts the defect, the rent belongs to him.
The tenant of a house may sublet it—before taking possession or afterward—for the same rent, for less, or for more, and there is no harm in his earning an additional amount for himself. By the contract he has acquired the right to its benefit and is free to dispose of it; in Mālik’s view, this is not an instance of making a profit on property for which one bears no liability.