Question
Mr.,
With due respect, my uncle has a business, which is located in a rented (shop) house. The landlord receives a fixed amount of money (4/5 lakh) in advance from the uncle at the time of renting the house, and the agreement is such that after the expiration of the term (3/4/5 years) the tenant (my uncle) pays the full amount in advance. Get it back. This time the money will be like a deposit. And pay the monthly rent every month as per the rules. In this case, my uncle is the main owner of the advance money, but he has no chance to use it before the expiration date. Rather the homeowner is benefiting by using it for his own needs or business. (The second purpose of receiving an advance is usually to make a profit from the money.)
Therefore, the polite question to you is, who will pay the zakat of the advance money during that period? My uncle or the owner of the house? 7129139465
Answer
- حامداومصلياومسلما، بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم -
This masala is actually subject to explanation. First of all, it has to be clear. And what is he spending that money on? Is it permissible for him to spend that money? If it is assumed that the tenant is taking the money as security. Then the money is deposited with the tenant. And it is not permissible to interfere with the object of the deposit or to spend it. As such, the owner of the money remained the tenant. Therefore, the tenant has to pay zakat on that money every year. Since the money is spent by the tenant. So it cannot be a deposit. Moreover, if the object of the deposit is destroyed without the consent of the depositor, there is no penalty. But that is not the case here. Because even if for some reason the money is completely destroyed by the tenant, the tenant is obliged to pay the money to the tenant. So it cannot be in the order of deposit. If it is called a mortgage, the same rule applies. This is because the mortgaged goods are also deposited with the mortgagor. But it is not possible to apply the deposit order here. Since the mortgagee spends the money on his own needs. And if the loan is taken. Even then the agreement is not being validated. Because getting interest from someone in exchange for a loan is also interest. Therefore, it is not possible to bring this agreement under the law even with a loan. However, in this case, if a method is adopted, the agreement falls under the scope of Zayez. That is, the execution of a long-term rental agreement. That is, at the time of execution of the lease agreement, the fixed rent per month will be mentioned. The extra money will then be paid in the name of paying the next month's rent in advance. The tenant will have to pay the fixed rent every month. And the rent will be paid from the money deposited with the tenant a few months before the month in which the tenant leaves the place. And if any money still survives, the owner will be obliged to return it. If this is the case, then the agreement and the payment of extra money will be a valid agreement. So the owner of the house will become the owner of the extra money. This will basically leave no tenant ownership. Since the tenant does not own the money, there is no question that zakat is required on it. On the other hand, since the owner of the house is becoming the owner of the money, it will be permissible for him to spend the money. At the same time zakat of that money will also be required on him. (Jadid Fiqhi Masa'il-1 / 147-148, Male Haram Aur Uske Masaref Wa Ahkam-75) Completely forfeiting the benefit of Fazla, Fatkun Rabba and this is a great command قال الشامى - اى اذا كان مشروطا (رد المحتار- كتاب البيوع, باب المرابحة, فصل فى القرض -7 / 295) وأما زكاة الأجرة المعجلة عن سنين في الإجارة الطويلة التي يفعلها بعض الناس عقودا ويشترطون الخيار ثلاثة أيام في رأس كل شهر فتجب على الآجر لَأنَّهُ مَلْكَهِ وَعِنْدَ الانَفِسِ 2532766149
- والله اعلم باالصواب -
