Is it permissible to benefit from a share in "badal khulū" (key money/premium for vacating property) or to sell it and benefit from its financial proceeds, knowing that this share is in exchange for a debt, and that the state has issued a decision granting the tenant the right of usufruct and disposal without reference to the original owner, who does not possess the right of eviction or rent increase, which makes the tenant virtually the owner? Is this considered an injustice to the original owner?

If the state seizes a property or shop, this is an usurpation (ghasb), and it is impermissible for the state to grant the right of usufruct over it to anyone. Whoever accepts this becomes an accomplice in the usurpation. A lease contract with an unspecified duration is invalid (fasid) and must be annulled, and the property returned to its owner. The tenant does not have the right to sell the property or bequeath it. The heirs are entitled to remain in the property only for the agreed-upon duration. If there is no known duration, the contract must be annulled, and the property returned to its owner. Based on this, it is not permissible to compensate a debt with a share of this property. The 'khulū' (premium for vacating) is only permissible during a specified lease term, and it does not apply to this case due to the absence of a known lease duration, and because the state's seizure of these properties was an usurpation. The one granted the right of usufruct does not have the right to sell or bequeath these properties; they must be returned to their owners.