Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/317

Paragraph 1- If the tenant says he made the rental payment he was obligated to make and the landlord says he did not take it yet, regardless of whether the rental was documented, in the presence of witnesses or not in the presence of witnesses, if the claim was made within the time of the rental, such as where he rented for 30 days and the landlord made the claim within 30 days, the tenant has the burden of proof or he must pay and can place a cherem on anyone who takes money from him illegally or he can make a separate claim on the money he gave originally and have the landlord take a heses oath. If the landlord makes the claim after 30 days, even on the 30th day, he has the burden of proof or the tenant would swear he already paid for the rental and would be exempt. Similarly, if the tenant rented from the landlord with the condition he pay rent each year, and the landlord made a claim within the year, the tenant has the burden of proof. If the landlord made a claim after the year, even if it was the last day of the year, he has the burden of proof. See above 78:3.

Paragraph 2- If one rents out his house to another via a document for 10 years with no date on the document and the tenant says they are only one year into the contract and the landlord said the rental years have already concluded and the tenant lived there for 10 years, the tenant has the burden of proof. If the tenant cannot bring proof, the landlord would take a heses oath and evict him. The same is true with respect to other claims between them. There are those who say, however, that if the rental period had already concluded he is able to say he paid or never rented and there is no claim between landlord and tenant, and although real property is in the presumption of its owners, the tenant would be believed with a migu.

Paragraph 3- If a rental document or collateral document stated “years” without specification, and the fruit-owner says it is three years, while the property owners says it is two years, and this renter or lender went ahead and consumed the fruits, the fruits are presumed to be owned by the party that consumed them until the owner of the property can bring proof. There are those who say that if the court sees that the renter or party taking collateral cannot prove their claims, we would remove the property from their possession.

Paragraph 4- If the renter or lender consumed three years and hid the document and said he has rights to the fruits for five years while the owner says it is for three years and tells his counterparty to bring the document, and the possessor says the document was misplaced, the renter is believed because had he wanted he could have said he purchased it given that he consumed three years. This is only where there are no witnesses that it is rented out or was given as collateral, and the owner of the property did not object. Otherwise, the possessor would not be believed.