Pretoria - The owner of a building in Doornfontein, Joburg, had to turn to court to obtain an order to enter its own premises to, among others, empty and clean the sewage-filled basement.
Mayfin Ltd, which owns the property known as Industry House, has been embroiled in legal proceedings for years in a bid to evict the non-paying residents in the building.
In the latest application before the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, Mayfin said the building was filthy and unsafe and urgently needed a clean-up and renovations.
The problem, however, is that the occupants will not allow the contractors to enter the building.
The court was told that the toilets, bathrooms and kitchens in the building had to be upgraded, sewage pipes and fire extinguishers had to be installed and running water and electricity connections had to be installed.
But the residents approached this application with apprehension. They believe it is nothing more than a stratagem to facilitate their eviction without complying with the Constitution and the law relating to evictions.
According to them, they would not prevent the owners or their contractors from entering the building, if it was for honest reasons such as cleaning and renovating. They accused the owner of not engaging with them to find an agreeable resolution.
The applicant stated that since it became the registered owner, it neither had control and possession of the property, nor received any income.
It painted a shocking picture to the court of the circumstances in and surrounding the property. This included floating excrement seen with the naked eye piled up in the basement to a level of over three metres high, the absence of running water in the building and the pungent smell permeating from the property.
Neighbours in surrounding buildings said they had to vacate their properties.
The state of the applicant’s property is leading to heavy commercial loss and the visible illegally and dangerously connected electrical cables pose a deadly risk to the occupiers and a fire hazard to the property, the court was told.
There are also no statutory-required health and safety measures in place, such as the installation of fire extinguishers.
The property is fully occupied by residents and their immediate families.
The applicant said it had given a written undertaking to the residents that it would only clean, control and protect its property while the occupiers continued their undisturbed occupation pending the finalisation of the ongoing eviction proceedings.
Eviction proceedings started in 2013 and after an order was granted, the eviction was stalled as the residents indicated they would appeal against it. Appeal proceedings are still pending.
In the wake of this, the residents said they were suspicious that the owner wanted to circumvent the eviction proceedings by getting rid of them via illegal means.
They said they were willing to discuss and agree on a regime that would not deprive them of the use and enjoyment of their homes.
The court was told that while the City of Joburg had conducted an assessment of the occupiers, it had done nothing to provide them with alternative accommodation.
The residents complained that the applicant had sought to make life at the property intolerable for them. They accused the owner of terminating the water and electricity supply to the building. According to them the health risks that the applicant referred to at the property were exaggerated.
The court meanwhile said the right to privacy and dignity of the occupiers must be weighed against the fact that the property in its current state was unsuitable for human habitation and in a state of disrepair.
It said the residents could not persuasively argue against the evidence that the property was a death trap.
Acting Judge F Bezuidenhout said it was in no one’s interests that the occupiers continue to live under such circumstances.
“The applicant has no responsibility for the situation. Since it acquired the property with the view of redeveloping it, it has tried to obtain control over the property and has been prevented from doing so.”
The judge said it was in the best interest of both parties to order that the owner be allowed to enter the premises to clean up and renovate, but he made it clear that they may not interfere with the rights of the occupants at this stage, until there was a valid eviction order in place.
Pretoria News