Does the former owner of the market, which was demolished by the government and replaced with a new market whose shops were distributed to the old tenants and others, have the right to demand rent from the old tenants for the shops that the government has made them owners of, especially given that the state law considers these shops to be the property of their current occupants?

It is impermissible to transgress upon another's property except by right. This constitutes injustice and usurpation. If the government prevents people from paying the rents of a specific person's shops, this is an invalid action, and the tenants must pay the rent to the market owner. The rent does not lapse by prescription. As for confiscating land, building a market, demolishing it, then building upon it and distributing shops without the owner's consent, this is a blatant act of aggression and usurpation. What the government built is invalid, and if the usurped owner requests its demolition and removal, it must be demolished and removed. If the usurped owner requests compensation for his right, his request must be granted. The compensation includes the value of what was demolished and the rent of the shops from the day of usurpation until the time of handover. If someone rents one of these houses, the owner has the right to demand rent from the day the tenant takes possession. The law that confiscates people's property under various pretexts is an invalid law that is not to be relied upon.