Studies the House of Lords decision in the case "Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon" where the landlords sought possession on the sole ground of the tenant's bankruptcy. HL upheld the CA decision that C had right of re-entry, consistent with the terms of the Rent Act 1977 s3(1) but from remarks made by one Lord, it would appear that they were unsure whether or not they should overturn the CA decision and allow M to appeal. HL arrived at a decision over the question of whether M had a legal obligation not to become bankrupt and whether or not a possession order should have been made against M where his rent was paid although he was bankrupt but the article argues that it was a 'strained' construction and examines the opinions and arguments put forward by the Lords themselves to illustrate this. Despite Lord Millet's conclusion the majority decided that the construction could be relied upon where the end result appears to be what Parliament intended, despite the poor drafting of the statute.