عنوان مقاله [English]
Sometimes in spite of expiry of farmletting period because of inevitable accidents, the crop is immature and harvest is impossible. In this situation rights of doer interfere with farmlessor rights. In sources of fiqh the basic disagreement is about uprooting and retention of crop. While majority of jurisconsults believe that farmlessor is dominant on free uprooting, others refuse this authority and another group of them believe in reciprocal retention in order to aggregate between the rights of farmlessor and doer. The last view is accepted by some of the codes of other countries such as Egypt.
In Iran law in this relation the article 540 is definite. Some of jurists by presentation of logical interpretation believe that proposition of this article of uprooting is only about where the farmhand has done dereliction, but this interpretation disagree with absolute legal authority of the owner to exercise dominion or control over property. In addition regarding to juridical history of discussion and attention to term "perchance" in words of legislature, this interpretation is unjustified versus historic interpretation.Furtheremore, others by analogy of farmletting contract with rent, believe that there is conflict between above article and article 504.nevertheless,we should forget the hallucination of conflict, because not only imagine of creation of two conflicted proposition in body of law is illogical but also subject of two article is different with each other. Furthermore farmletting unlike rent is participatory contract and deserve of farmlessor on uprooting is only limited if there is a clause about retention of crop for determined duration or if it is an accepted usage and costom.