Is it permissible to rent a dwelling by paying a lump sum for three years, which is to be fully refunded after the term ends, along with paying a symbolic monthly rent to satisfy the opinion of some scholars?

This transaction is impermissible because it is a prohibited usurious loan. Paying money to the owner for him to benefit from it and then return its equivalent is considered a loan. The lender's benefit from occupying the house until he recovers his money makes it a loan that draws a benefit, which is usury by consensus. Scholars have unanimously agreed on the prohibition of every loan that brings a benefit to the lender. An example of this is lending someone money on the condition that you reside in his house for a specific period. The consideration in contracts is their true nature, and this type of transaction is usury, no matter what it is called.