3
[Citation.] ‘In practical effect, we assume the role of a trial court and apply the same rules and
standards which govern a trial court’s determination of a motion for summary judgment.’
[Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 504-505.) “‘In independently reviewing a motion for summary
[judgment], we apply the same three-step analysis used by the [trial] court. “First, we identify
the issues framed by the pleadings . . . . [¶] Secondly, we determine whether the moving party’s
showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in
movant’s favor. . . . [¶] When a . . . motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the third and final
step is to determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material
factual issue.”’ [Citation.]” (Rosales v. Battle (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1182.)
Under section 1161, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer when he or she remains in
possession of the premises, without the permission of the landlord, after defaulting in the
payment of rent under the rental agreement, and fails to pay the rent due after being served with
a written three-day notice stating such amount and the place at which payment is to be made.
(§ 1161, subd. (2).)
An unlawful detainer action is not based upon contract but rather “‘is a statutory
proceeding . . . governed solely by the provisions of the statute creating it.’ [Citations.] As
special proceedings are created and authorized by statute, the jurisdiction over any special
proceeding is limited by the terms and conditions of the statute under which it was authorized
[citation], and a lessor’s action to recover possession of real property is not one for unlawful
detainer where he does not comply with the statutory . . . requirements [citation]. The statutory
procedure must be strictly followed. [Citations.]” (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d
596, 599-600.)
As noted above, one of the statutory requirements for an unlawful detainer is the service
of a three-day notice stating the amount of past-due rent. (§ 1161, subd. (2).) The amount of
rent must be stated accurately. “A notice that seeks rent in excess of the amount due is invalid
and will not support an unlawful detainer action. [Citation.]” (Levitz Furniture v. Wingtip
Communications (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038; see also Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169
Cal.App.3d 746, 753.)
Due to the undisputed unlawful status of the premises rented by plaintiff to defendant,