Introduction
A landlord has collected rent from the same tenant for six years, issuing signed receipts every month. One day, the tenant stops paying and, when sued for eviction, claims there was never really a landlord-tenant relationship at all — just an informal arrangement between friends. Six years of receipts exist. Who now has to prove what?
Section 112 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) answers exactly this kind of dispute, and two others structured the same way: partnerships, and principal-agent arrangements. This article covers the provision's text, a September 2025 Supreme Court ruling on how far rent receipts alone can carry a landlord's case, and how the presumption applies across all three relationships it covers.
112. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
Section 112 reproduces Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 without any change — confirmed against two independent sources, including Indian Kanoon's own cross-reference marking it a direct, unaltered carry-over.
One Rule, Three Relationships
Section 112 rests on a single logical move applied to three different relationships: once conduct shows the relationship existed, the law presumes it continues, and puts the burden of proving otherwise on whoever denies it.
| Relationship | Typical Evidence of "Acting As Such" | What It Takes to Rebut |
|---|---|---|
| Partners | Sharing profits, jointly operating a business, holding out to third parties as partners | Proof of formal dissolution, retirement, or that the arrangement was never a partnership at all |
| Landlord and tenant | Signed rent receipts, a lease document, regular rent payments accepted as such | Proof the tenancy was validly terminated, or that the payments were never rent at all |
| Principal and agent | Acting on another's behalf with their authorisation, in dealings with third parties | Proof the authority was revoked, or that no such authorisation ever existed |
H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma: What Rent Receipts Alone Can Prove
The Supreme Court applied this exact principle to a landlord-tenant dispute in H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma, 2025 INSC 1087, decided on 9 September 2025 by Maheshwari and Bishnoi, JJ. A Rent Controller had passed an eviction order in 2017 based on rent receipts signed by the landlord; the Karnataka High Court later set that order aside, reasoning that the landlord had not sufficiently proved his own title and lineage to the property. The Supreme Court restored the original eviction order, holding that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappraising evidence that was never in genuine dispute at trial. Under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 — read alongside the ordinary evidentiary principle Section 112 BSA now codifies nationally — rent receipts signed by the landlord are themselves prima facie proof of the jural landlord-tenant relationship; a Rent Controller need not first resolve a separate, complex question of the landlord's ownership title before proceeding on that basis.
Applying the Same Logic to a Partnership Dispute
Two shopkeepers have jointly run a business for years, splitting profits and signing supplier invoices together. When a supplier sues both over an unpaid bill, one shopkeeper claims he was never a partner — merely an employee. Section 112 places the burden on him: having been shown acting as a partner, he must now produce evidence — a salary structure, an employment letter, anything inconsistent with a genuine partnership — to prove the relationship the conduct suggests never actually existed. The supplier does not need to independently prove a formal partnership deed exists.
The Common Thread Running Through Section 112
Partners, landlords and tenants, and principals and agents are otherwise unrelated categories of relationship — but Section 112 groups them because all three tend to be evidenced the same indirect way: by conduct over time, rather than a single decisive document produced on demand. Requiring fresh, absolute proof of the relationship every time it is questioned would reward whichever party can most conveniently claim amnesia about an arrangement both sides have been living inside for years. By presuming continuity once the conduct is shown, Section 112 puts the burden where the incentive to dispute honestly actually sits.
Key Takeaways
- Section 112 BSA carries forward Section 109 IEA without any wording change, confirmed across independent sources.
- It covers three relationships identically: partners, landlord-tenant, and principal-agent — once conduct shows the relationship existed, it is presumed to continue.
- The burden of proving the relationship never existed, or has since ended, falls on whoever denies it — not on the party relying on the relationship.
- H.S. Puttashankara v. Yashodamma, 2025 INSC 1087, confirms that signed rent receipts alone can satisfy a landlord's initial burden without a separate inquiry into title.
- State-specific rent-control statutes may layer additional requirements on top of this general principle — the Section 112 presumption is the floor, not necessarily the whole picture.
Conclusion
Section 112 spares parties who have plainly been acting as partners, or as landlord and tenant, or as principal and agent, from having to re-prove that relationship from scratch every time it is convenient for the other side to deny it. Puttashankara shows the practical payoff: ordinary, everyday proof — a signed rent receipt — was enough to carry a landlord's case all the way to the Supreme Court and back. Chapter VII's descent through the burden-of-proof provisions continues next at Section 111.