A group of tenants of a building in Lorne Street, Durban - many of them elderly pensioners who have lived in their flats for more than 50 years - have gone to the Durban High Court, seeking to prevent their evictions to make way for a multimillion-rand expansion of City Hospital.
The tenants are also attempting to join the national Housing minister in the action, claming that the incumbent, between 2000 and 2003, did not adhere to a National Assembly instruction to assess the impact of a repeal of protections previously given to tenants in rent-controlled premises.
These were that they could only be evicted if they were in material breach of their leases or if the owner wanted the property for his personal use.
Because of this, they now want an order reinstituting these protections and deeming the minister to have acted unconstitutionally.
In papers before Judge Kevin Swain, the 16 tenants say the trust that owns the building launched an application in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), to have them evicted.
Most of them have lived in the building for more than 20 years and some for more than 50 years.
They said the building was rent-controlled before the repeal of the Rent Control Act.
They are vulnerable and entitled to protection, they claim.
But Bharat Kassim, a trustee and practicing radiologist, said in his affidavit that they were not vulnerable but "affluent tenants".
He claimed that at least one owned other properties, others had wealthy relatives and one had even sublet her flat.
He said the trustees had sold the building to Soundprops, which intended demolishing most of it and converting it into a hospital.
In terms of the sale agreement, Soundprops had to be given vacant occupation by July this year.
"This (the eviction) needs to be done urgently. City Hospital will fast lose patients and suffer a large decline in market share to its competitors. And the trust could face a substantial damages claim," he said.
In argument on Wednesday advocate M S Omar, for the trust, denied that the trustee's motive was "purely for profit".
"A hospital performs a valuable health service . . . there are over-riding health interests at stake.
He said the tenants were not "homeless squatters" and that they had refused to disclose their financial status.
He said that they could easily find alternative accommodation because Durban had a "vibrant and dynamic rental market".
"The reality is they want to stay there because they pay relatively low rentals for large flats in a convenient area," Omar said.
But advocate Andrea Gabriel, for the tenants, said their social network and environment should not be disrupted.
She said that this and other factors, such as the length of time the tenants had lived in their flats and their age, had to be taken into account for the court to make a "just and equitable order".
"The court has a difficult task of balancing competing constitutional rights," she said.
Judgment was reserved.