The differentiation between Miete and Pacht is a special feature of German law and doesn't exist under Anglo-American law.

The difference is as follows:
"Durch den Pachtvertrag wird der Verpächter verpflichtet, dem Pächter gegen Zahlung des Pachtzinses den Gebrauch des gepachteten Gegenstandes und darüber hinaus - sonst nur Miete! - den Genuß der bei ordnungsgemäßer Wirtschaft anfallenden Früchte während der Pachtzeit zu gewähren (§ 581 BGB)." (Creifelds, Rechtswörterbuch)

Iow, Pacht is a lease/rental arrangement whereby the lessee is not only entitled to use the leased object (premises or land) but also the "Früchte", i.e. the proceeds or benefits derived from the leased object (the German uses the term Früchte because Pachtverträge are typically entered into for agricultural land, gardens, etc - but not only).

The Anglo-American terms lease and rent are not distinguished in this way. I would therefore propose the following translation: lease agreements that entitle the lessee to the proceeds and benefits derived from the leased property - long, but a precise reflection of the underlying concept.

Btw: Untervermietung is subletting under a Mietvertrag (i.e. under a lease or rental agreement), whereas Unterverpachtung is the equivalent under a Pachtvertrag.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-12-03 04:11:45 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Answer to Fred\'s question:

I see your point. You are referring to the fact that you cannot pass on a greater estate than the one you yourself have (a fundamental legal principle in all jurisdictions). I don\'t see how the Mieter could possibly assign the rights to the Früchte to a third party if the Mieter, by virtue of being a Mieter and not a Pächter, does not have a right to the Früchte. This may well be a consideration that did not enter the author\'s mind and they merely attempted to cover all their basis with regard to the assignment of rights relating to the Objekt.

In actual fact, in Germany (and I\'m sure also in Austria) the lessor\'s (both Vermieter and Verpächter) consent is even required by statute if the lessee wishes to sublet, rendering the last part of the original sentence virtually obsolete. My assumption is that the author wanted to clearly outline the limits of the lessee\'s rights and entitlements and therefore stated the obvious (to the legal mind anyway).