VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J housing.7 But the City‘s obligations with regard to this right and the implications of the constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property8 are of overall import to the questions of eviction and provision of temporary accommodation for emergency reasons. Finally, a conclusion is reached and a remedy fashioned. Factual and litigation background [6] The Occupiers comprise 81 adults and five children.9 One child is a person with disability, two adults are pensioners and a number of the households are headed by women. The average income per household is R940 per month. Many of the Occupiers send a portion of their income to family members in other parts of the country. Most of them do not have formal employment and make their living in the informal sector in the central business district. The location of the building is crucial to the Occupiers‘ income. The majority of them say that they would not be able to afford the transport costs necessitated by living elsewhere. The Occupiers, relying on expert evidence, also state that if they were to be evicted, they would have to sleep on the street as they would not be able to find affordable accommodation. [7] All the Occupiers have resided at the property for more than six months; several of them have lived there for many years. One had resided there since 1976, but passed 7 Section 26 of the Constitution recognises the right of access to adequate housing and is quoted in [18] below. 8 See section 25(1) of the Constitution, dealt with in [17] and [34]-[37] below. 9 The Occupiers‘ details are set out in a document entitled ―Survey of Occupiers of 7 Saratoga Avenue, Johannesburg‖ (Survey) filed in the High Court on 30 April 2008. An affidavit filed by the Occupiers at the commencement of the proceedings initially gave a different number of people. However, the Survey was conducted pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 6 February 2008 that required the City to conduct a survey and record in writing the particulars of the Occupiers. When the City failed to complete this task, it was undertaken by the Occupiers‘ attorneys and the Survey was filed by consent. 4