8
Although the tenants admit that appellants are natural persons, they
contend that natural persons acting as trustees are not “natural persons.” We
are not persuaded.
“The fundamental purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain
the intent” of the legislative body that adopted the enactment. (People v.
Jacobo, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 42.) “We begin by considering the actual
language of the statute, giving its words their usual and ordinary meaning.
[Citations.] We construe the words of a statute as a whole and within the
overall statutory scheme to effectuate the intent of the [legislative body].
[Citation.] If the words of the statute are unambiguous, the plain meaning of
the statute governs and there is no need for construction. [Citations.]
However, if the statutory language is ambiguous, we look to other indicia of
the intent of the [legislative body]. [Citations.] Those other indicia may
include the purpose of the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative
history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute.”
(Ibid.)
We liberally construe remedial legislation, such as the Rent Ordinance,
to effectuate its purposes. (Parkmerced Co. v. San Francisco Rent
Stabilization & Arbitration Bd. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 490, 495
(Parkmerced).) Simultaneously, “ ‘unlawful detainer statutes are to
be strictly construed’ ” because “ ‘the remedy of unlawful detainer is a
summary proceeding to determine the right to possession of real property . . .
[and] is purely statutory in nature.’ ” (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health
Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 480 (Dr. Leevil).) Thus, it is “ ‘essential
that a party seeking the remedy bring [itself] clearly within the statute.’ ”
(Ibid.)