Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute says: "A tenant who fails to pay rent for two consecutive months shall be liable to eviction." Meera, a tenant, missed rent for one month, paid the next, and then missed two other non-consecutive months in the same year. The landlord seeks eviction. A court adopting the literal rule and giving effect to the plain words would hold:

Meera is not liable to eviction. The literal rule applies the plain words of the statute, which require default for two consecutive months. Her defaults were not consecutive, and a court cannot add words such as 'cumulative' to widen the provision.

  1. AMeera is liable to eviction because she defaulted in total for three months in the year
  2. BMeera is liable to eviction because the purpose of the law is to protect landlords, overriding the words
  3. CMeera is not liable, because the plain words require default for two consecutive months and the default here was not consecutiveCorrect
  4. DMeera is liable because the court may add the word 'cumulative' to fill a gap in the provision

Explanation

Under the literal rule, words are given their natural and ordinary meaning. The statute needs default for two consecutive months, and Meera's defaults were never consecutive. Courts cannot add words like 'cumulative' to the statute or expand it by assumed purpose. Counting total months wrongly ignores the word 'consecutive'.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions