All land was ultimately held of the king. If it was held directly of the king it was said to be held “in chief.” There could be any number of feudal tenants between the final person who held the land, and the king himself.
So, no one actually owned land, they held it by some feudal right. The tenant might owe rent, but commonly it was held by some service to the king (such as providing knights in time of war). So, the king always had the right to take land back; however, from a practical standpoint this wasn’t done. Land was transferred from heir to heir according to the common laws of inheritance. Inquisitions post mortem were held whenever a feudal tenant died to determine the rights of the king and who the right heir was.
Here, the gift was permanent to Matthew Besilles and his heirs, assuming no one came forward with a rightful claim. He likely did not pay “rent” the way we think of it, but he would owe taxes and some feudal obligation to the king. If Payn had a rightful heir which the IPM failed to identify, that heir likely would have sued, won, and recovered the land (this was extremely common).
I hope that helped.