Is the sale of a rented house valid, whether the buyer knows about the lease or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Among them is the sale of a rented house, which is valid and sound.
The Shaykh : It is valid. It is not valid because it is masculine. It is valid, O my father, it is valid.
The questioner : The sale of a rented house is valid, whether the buyer knows about the lease or not. Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of Ja'far ibn Muhammad. In the narration of al-Maimuni, he said that he does not have the right to sell it until he clarifies the situation. His basis may be the condition of knowledge regarding the excluded benefits in the contract. It was also said that the absolute sale encompasses the benefits, and since Ahmad [held that] it is currently the property of another, it resembles splitting the transaction. However, Ahmad only made clarification obligatory because it involves deception and splitting.
The Shaykh : Because leaving it [unclarified]...
The questioner : Because leaving it [unclarified] is deception and misleading, and he did not address the issue of validity or invalidity. It is valid.
The Shaykh : This is the apparent view. Do you understand this issue? A man has a house rented out for a year, and he sells it to a person. Now, this house has an excluded benefit for whom?
This house that was sold has an excluded benefit for whom? For the tenant, because his right precedes the contract. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated the validity of the house, and it is so. The second narration from him says that he should not sell until he clarifies. Does this imply that the sale is not valid? Or does it imply that the seller is required to clarify that the house is rented? This is the necessary interpretation so that the two narrations agree on validity, but the two narrations clarify that the seller is required to clarify. Because if he does not clarify, there is deception in this, since the tenant will remain with his right, and the buyer will be misled into thinking he owns the property with its benefits from the time of the contract. Therefore, the seller is required in this case to clarify if he sells a rented property. Now, if he did not clarify and sold it, does the buyer have the option?
The questioner : He is reassured. Yes.
The Shaykh : He has the option to either keep the sale, in which case the rent belongs to the buyer from the time of purchase, or to annul the contract.
The questioner : The same applies to waqf (endowment). How? For example, if I endow it and rent out this waqf, I endowed it for students of knowledge, so he took the waqf and rented it out.
The Shaykh : No, this is not valid. This is not valid because the benefit is not with the person. Yes.
The Shaykh : It is valid. It is not valid because it is masculine. It is valid, O my father, it is valid.
The questioner : The sale of a rented house is valid, whether the buyer knows about the lease or not. Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of Ja'far ibn Muhammad. In the narration of al-Maimuni, he said that he does not have the right to sell it until he clarifies the situation. His basis may be the condition of knowledge regarding the excluded benefits in the contract. It was also said that the absolute sale encompasses the benefits, and since Ahmad [held that] it is currently the property of another, it resembles splitting the transaction. However, Ahmad only made clarification obligatory because it involves deception and splitting.
The Shaykh : Because leaving it [unclarified]...
The questioner : Because leaving it [unclarified] is deception and misleading, and he did not address the issue of validity or invalidity. It is valid.
The Shaykh : This is the apparent view. Do you understand this issue? A man has a house rented out for a year, and he sells it to a person. Now, this house has an excluded benefit for whom?
This house that was sold has an excluded benefit for whom? For the tenant, because his right precedes the contract. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated the validity of the house, and it is so. The second narration from him says that he should not sell until he clarifies. Does this imply that the sale is not valid? Or does it imply that the seller is required to clarify that the house is rented? This is the necessary interpretation so that the two narrations agree on validity, but the two narrations clarify that the seller is required to clarify. Because if he does not clarify, there is deception in this, since the tenant will remain with his right, and the buyer will be misled into thinking he owns the property with its benefits from the time of the contract. Therefore, the seller is required in this case to clarify if he sells a rented property. Now, if he did not clarify and sold it, does the buyer have the option?
The questioner : He is reassured. Yes.
The Shaykh : He has the option to either keep the sale, in which case the rent belongs to the buyer from the time of purchase, or to annul the contract.
The questioner : The same applies to waqf (endowment). How? For example, if I endow it and rent out this waqf, I endowed it for students of knowledge, so he took the waqf and rented it out.
The Shaykh : No, this is not valid. This is not valid because the benefit is not with the person. Yes.
Source
قناة «فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين»، 315 - هل يصح بيع الدار المؤجرة سواء علم المشتري بالإجارة أو لم يعلم؟ قواعد ابن رجب - ابن عثيمين — youtube.com
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.