If the contract comes upon the benefits of things like hiring houses, animals, cars and the like, then that which is contracted upon is the benefit of the thing and estimating the comparable wage inevitably comes by looking to the thing whose benefit equals the benefit of the hired thing. Whenever the hiring of the thing is completed, then the hirer can take the benefit of the thing which he hired; so if he hired a house, he can reside therein or if it was an animal or car, then he can ride it. The hirer can hire the hired thing once he possesses it at the same (amount) he hired it or for more or less. This is because taking possession of the hired thing stands in the place of taking possession of the benefit with the evidence that he is allowed to dispose in it, thus the contract over it is permitted. And also because it is a contract permitted with the capital. However, when he hires the thing for the benefit he can take similar to that benefit or less, but he cannot take more than this same benefit. This is because it is not permitted for him to take more than his right or other than what he deserves. If he hires an animal to ride it, it is not permitted for him to load a burden upon it because riding is lighter than loading. If he hires a car for such a distance, it is not permitted for him to ride it for a greater distance than that which he hired it for. If he hired a house to reside therein, it is not for him to make a storehouse for wood, iron or the like which is of greater harm to the house than residing. In short, if the contract came upon the thing for compensation it is a sale, and if it came upon the benefit of the thing for compensation it is hiring. Accordingly the contract can come upon the thing alone like selling a tree with produce whose goodness has appeared without selling its produce and it can come upon the thing with its benefit like selling a house. And it can come upon the produce alone like selling a produce whose goodness has appeared, and it can come upon non-corporeal benefit itself like residing in a house. If it came upon a benefit which is not considered a thing, it is hiring not a sale. Just as the buyer of the thing owns the thing and disposes therein in all disposals, similarly the hirer of the thing owns the hired thing which he possesses by hiring and he can dispose in it in all disposals once he takes possession of it. This is because taking possession of the thing when it is hired stands the place of taking possession of the benefits with the evidence that he is permitted to dispose therein so the contract over it is permitted like selling the produce upon its tree. Whenever the hiring of the thing is completed and he takes possession of its benefit, the hirer possesses all of the Shari’ah disposals in the thing’s benefit which he hired because it is his ownership. So he can hire it at the wage he considers, whatever (amount) it reaches. So if he hired it for 50 and then hired it (to someone) for 500, it is permitted because he owns the benefit so he owns (the right to) hire it (to someone) according to what he considers not according to what he hired it for. Hence what is termed as Premium/Lease Premium for storehouses, houses and others—which is paying a specific amount of money on top of the decreed wage for the house or storehouse to the first tenant from those who hire from him—is permitted and there is nothing (wrong) in it because the tenant can hire the house or storehouse which is in his hire to another for the decreed wage and for a greater amount than for that which it was hired for.. This is a permitted matter because it is permitted for him to hire out what he hired for more or less than he hired it since it is a contract permitted with the capital so it is permitted for an increase like selling the sold good after he takes possession of it for more than he bought it for.

Herein is a question of delivering the hired thing to the owner after the end of the contract: Is it obligatory or not?

The response upon that is that returning the hired thing is obligatory upon him if the hired thing is in his possession due to what Ahmad narrated from Sumra from the Prophet (saw) who said:

Whereas if the hired thing is not in his possession, then it is looked into. If it was seized forcefully from him, it is upon the one who seized by force to return the hired thing to its owner not upon the one who hired it since the one who seized is the one commanded to return the thing. Ahmad has narrated from As-Saib bin Yazid from his father who said:

This is general whether he took it from its owner or from someone else. However, if the hirer lends it to someone else or hires it to him, then after the end of the contract between him and the owner of the property it is obliged upon him to deliver the hired thing to its owner. That is due to the generality of the hadith:

And there does not exist another text in hiring or otherwise excluding it as came in seizing by force. Therefore it remains in the generality of his statement “until he restores it.” It is not said that the hadith also covers the second hirer because his hand took so it is obliged upon him to restore it so restoring becomes due upon him. This is not said because the hadith, even if it applies upon the second hirer, does not annul the first hirer from restoring the hired thing. So it is upon the first hirer to restore the hired thing to its owner, and it is upon the second hirer to restore the hired thing to the first hirer. The obligation of restoring it upon the first hirer does not annul restoring it upon the second hirer. Similarly the obligation of restoring it upon the second hirer does not annul restoring it upon the first hirer, except that the owner is adds from his wage and delivered the thing to him i.e. the first hirer. Accordingly if a person rents a house to another then he rented it to someone else for a greater rent i.e. he took what they call the khalwu rajul (premium/Lease premium) then if the renting period for the first tenant ends the contract ends. It becomes obligatory upon him to deliver the house to its owner except if its owner renews the contract with him so it remains under his authority even if not under his possession. Or its owner continues the contract with the second tenant so it is considered that he himself has taken over the house. At that point the first tenant is acquitted from delivering the house and it is considered that he delivered it to its owner and the owner’s relationship became with the second hirer.