Rahnema v Rahbari [2008] 2 P. & C.R. DG5
Rights to occupation rent and/or purchase from a co-owner of property.
Facts
Ms. Ansari’s mother, Ms. Rahbari, was married Dr. Rahbari, entering into a martial agreement which provided that property acquired during the marriage was to be jointly-owned. Ms. Ansari sold her house to Ms. Rahbari, with part of the purchase price deferred with Ms. Ansari being granted an equitable charge over the property. Ms. Rahbari executed a deed of trust declaring herself as owner of the property on trust for Ms. Ansari; Legal title was later conveyed to Ms. Ansari who continued to occupy the property. Dr. Rahnema and Ms. Rahbari divorced and Dr. Rahnema made an application for occupation rent from Ms. Ansari.
Issues
The question arose as to (1) whether Ms. Ansari was liable for an occupation rent in relation to the property that was held on trust for Dr. Rahnema and Ms. Ansari under the martial agreement and (2) whether Ms. Ansari can purchase the property from Dr. Rahnema.
Decision/Outcome
Firstly, the Court held that when property is held on trust in equal shares for two parties, both parties are entitled to benefit from the property in equal shares. Thus, on the principle of doing that which is equitable and just, if one co-owner occupies the property rent-free, the occupying party is liable to pay occupation rent to the other co-owner. Accordingly, as both Dr. Rahnema and Ms. Ansari held equal shares in trust in the property, Ms. Ansari was liable to Dr. Rahnema for occupation rent. Secondly, the Court held that, concerning Ms. Ansari’s right to purchase, the best way to ensure an equitable result was for the property to be sold on the open market for the best price, on which Ms. Ansari may purchase the property, and with the sale proceeds divided equally between the co-owners.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article provides a broadly accurate summary of Rahnema v Rahbari [2008] 2 P. & C.R. DG5. The core legal principles discussed — namely that a co-owner in exclusive occupation of co-owned property may be liable to pay occupation rent to the other co-owner, and that sale on the open market is typically the appropriate remedy to achieve an equitable outcome — remain consistent with the general law of co-ownership and trusts of land in England and Wales as governed by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. No subsequent statutory amendments or later appellate decisions are known to have overruled or materially altered the principles applied in this case. Students should note, however, that occupation rent remains a discretionary equitable remedy, and the courts’ approach in any given case will depend heavily on the specific facts; readers should consult more detailed materials on TOLATA 1996 and the broader case law on equitable accounting between co-owners for a fuller picture.
