IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
Case Number: 1549/2012
In the matter between:
STELLENBOSCH MUNICIPALITY	Applicant	
and		
LONA VAN WYK	First Respondent	
	Second Respondent	
RICHARD JARVIS	Third Respondent	
JASON GILBERTSON	Fourth Respondent	
STEFAN WAGENAAR	Fifth Respondent	
ELOISE KELLERMAN	Sixth Respondent	
JEANDRE MARAIS	Seventh Respondent	
CORNE VAN DER BERG	Eighth Respondent	

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 8 FEBRUARY 2013

[1] The applicant, in whose area of jurisdiction the first respondent’s property is located, seeks an order interdicting and restraining the first respondent from operating an accommodation establishment, more specifically student accommodation. The property in respect of which the interdict is sought is situated at erf 2208 Stellenbosch also known as 16 Simonsberg Street, Simonswyk, Stellenbosch, Western Cape (“the property”).
[2] The second to eighth respondents are students studying at the Stellenbosch University. They occupy the property in terms of the lease agreement with the first respondent. The first, third and fifth respondents are opposing the application. The remaining respondents are not opposing the application.

[5] The third and fifth respondents oppose the application on the ground that they are entitled to occupy and remain on the property because they have concluded lease agreements with the first respondents, which lease agreements will only expire in January 2013. They contend that they have a right to housing and this right will be infringed if the order sought by the applicant is granted.

[10] After hearing arguments I allowed the first respondent to introduce Mr Maree’s affidavits on the ground that some of the issues they traverse are already foreshadowed in the answering affidavits. The applicant has fully responded to them, in these circumstances it is unlikely that their introduction will cause the applicant any significant prejudice.
The Facts

[12] It is further common cause that the first respondent and her two daughters occupy the property as s family and that the second to eighth respondents (the students) also occupy the property in terms of the lease agreements they concluded with the first respondent.

[14] The applicants official thereupon served the first respondent with a notice by handing a copy thereof to a student renting a room on the property. The notice read thus;
“ 
It has been established that you are utilizing the aforementioned property for Student Accommodation, which does not comply with the Zoning Scheme Regulations,

[15] Thereafter on 18 January 2010 and in an attempt to regularise the use of the property, the first respondent submitted to the applicant an application for special development in terms of regulations 10.2.2 of the applicant’s Zoning Scheme Regulations to allow for the accommodation of four additional persons, and to utilise the property for the accommodation of students for reward.
[16] Service on the first respondent of a notice to warn her that her use of the property was unlawful, did not deter the first respondent. She continued to utilise the property for student accommodation. This prompted the applicant to serve another notice on the first respondent again informing her that her use of the property for student accommodation was in contravention of the Zoning Scheme Regulations and warning her of the consequences of her conduct.

Discussion

[38] Although the first respondent contends that she first brought the application for special development in 1999 and that the one which she brought in January 2010 was not the first one, I was, however, unable to find any evidence on the papers to substantiate her claims,

[39] On these facts, 1 am unable to exercise my discretion in favour of the respondents as in my view to do so would amount to the condonation of criminal behaviour. The nature of the objections lodged by the first respondents neighbours’ evidences serious infringement of their property rights which is still continuing.

Order

2. The first respondent is ordered to give the second to eighth respondents thirty (30) days notice terminating the lease agreements,

D H ZONDl
HIGH COURT JUDGE