The High Court has given people living at a premises in Grangegorman in Dublin - which was the scene of incidents earlier this week - until 4 May to move out.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan granted orders preventing a number of named individuals, and anyone with notice of the orders, from interfering with Nama-appointed receiver Luke Charleton's right to take possession of a number of properties at Lower Grangegorman and North Brunswick Street.
The judge told three men who turned up in court to oppose the receiver's application that they, and others in occupation of part of the property, could have until 4 May to move out.
He rejected an application on behalf of the receiver to give them a stay of just two weeks on his order, or to allow surveyors to go into the property to assess its condition for the purpose of putting it on the market.
He was prepared to give longer than sought by the receiver on the basis that there would be no damage to the property during that time.
In view of the fact that many of the people had been there for a considerable period of time, and as Mr Charleton had been appointed receiver some time ago, the status quo should be maintained until 4 May and the matter could come back before him on 5 May.
After being told by Graham O'Doherty, solicitor for the receiver, that one individual, not before the court, had given a press interview saying he would disobey any court order, the judge said it would be "very disappointing" if that happened.
He gave both sides liberty to apply to the court in the meantime if there are any difficulties.
Stephen Bedford, who along with James Sutherland and Gréum Ná Hearadh appeared in court to oppose the receiver's application, said he believed he and others at the premises should be granted the same courtesy in relation to notice of eviction that anyone with a rent agreement has.
A number of people who live there were currently "out of the country or the county" and would need time to organise their affairs including the removal of furniture and belongings, he said.
The court heard since they moved in, the occupants had established a garden where they grow food, art gallery space, cafe space, a circus workshop, and underfloor heating from biomass.
It was argued that by granting the receiver's application, a number of people will be homeless.
