What is the ruling when a landlord claims to have leased the property, but the resident claims to have been hired to guard it for the same rent?

Primary text

When the landlord states, 'I rented it to you for one dinar for one year,' but the resident claims, 'Rather, you hired me to guard it for one dinar,' the statement of the property owner (landlord) prevails unless the resident provides clear evidence (*bayyinah*). This is because the occupancy and use of the property's usufruct by the resident has occurred, which belongs to the owner. The principle favors the owner regarding his property, and the default assumption is the absence of a contract hiring the resident for guarding services; thus, the one denying that contract (the landlord) is believed.