VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J away during these proceedings; another has resided at the property since 1990. It is common cause that their occupation is unlawful. It was once lawful though. They lived on the property with the permission of a company which operated from the property until 1999; they then paid rent to a caretaker who ostensibly acted on behalf of the owner until 2000; and they subsequently paid rent to two different property letting firms until 2004. [8] In 2004 Blue Moonlight purchased the property with the hope of redeveloping it. The Occupiers allege that they paid rent to an individual and into two bank accounts until the end of 2005, but Blue Moonlight contends that it never received payments. [9] The condition of the property has deteriorated over the years. In 2000 and 2002 – while their occupation was presumably still lawful – the Occupiers laid two complaints with the Housing Tribunal, but nothing came of them. In 2005 the City issued two notices warning Blue Moonlight to remedy the fire safety and the health and sanitation conditions on the property. It is not disputed that the current conditions are abysmal. [10] On 28 June 2005 Blue Moonlight posted a notice to vacate the property by 31 July 2005. This notice also purported to cancel any lease that may have existed. Another notice, to the same effect, was posted on 6 January 2006 with a deadline of 5 February 2006. 5