Explanation:

Let’s break this down with bullet points:

- Option 1: Rendell v Pen – This case isn’t recognized as a landmark on restrictive covenants. It isn’t commonly cited in this area.

- Option 2: Paul v Gopal Nath – Same story here. This isn’t one of the leading English cases on restrictive covenants; might come up in a different context, but not the big one for this topic.

- Option 3: Tulk v Moxhay – Here’s the thing: this is the iconic case. This 1848 decision is famous for establishing that restrictive covenants can run with the land and bind future owners (if certain conditions are met).

- Option 4: All of the above – No, because only option 3 is the right match.