Archive

 
 

Some home truths

There’s nothing like an increase in charges to bring to the fore the tenuous relationship between land­lord and tenants. A circular sent in January 2017 by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) to non-Wadia housing colonies asking tenants to pay enhanced service charges of Rs 750 per month has received a studied response from the residents. Instead of taking up arms against the BPP they have tactfully asked for a statement of expenditure and income and a meeting with the trustees.

The five Wadia baugs received a notice for increase almost a year ago and most, if not all, have reportedly paid up. Letters written by at least one Wadia baug tenants’ association reportedly did not receive any reply nor did the meeting requested with the trustees materialize. The BPP has asked residents of some colonies to repair buildings at their cost and the trust will compensate them 50% as and when they receive funds. One BPP trustee told Parsiana where repairs are urgent the BPP forks out their 50% share at the time of repairing. Otherwise the payment is made as and when funds are available. (The Garib Zarthostiona Rehethan Fund in contrast bears 100% of the repair costs and does not charge tenancy transfer fees.)

"For the past 15 years the previous trustees in their wisdom did not burden (their) beneficiaries and limited the service charges to a mere Rs 150 per month," stated the "Parsi Darshan" column in The Bombay Samachar of February 12, 2017. The column reflects the views of erstwhile BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and his son, Viraf, current BPP trustee. The former trustees could afford to shower largesse as the income from transferring tenancies in certain baugs earned them hefty amounts in deposits and donations. Plus with baug residents constituting the majority of voters, the trustees may have thought it politically prudent to absorb any cost increases.

But since the present trustees discontinued the policy of transferring tenancies to the highest bidder and stopped accepting deposits and donations for doing so, the BPP coffers have dried up. With the public image of the trustees taking a beating on account of their internecine feuds, donations from well-wishers are few and far between. In addition, with the constant court cases filed against one another, there is little time left to devote to supplementing the income.

For example, on February 13, 14, 15 and 16 there were two cases being heard in the Bombay High Court. One pertained to the extension of time for hearing the purported resignation of BPP trustee Muncherji Cama pending before the Charity Commissioner and the other demanding that the majority four trustees give access to BPP papers, files and minutes to BPP trustees Armaity Tirandaz and Viraf. There are also several matters in the Charity Commissioner’s office including one regarding allotment of a flat in Cusrow Baug to homeopath Dr Farrokh Master.

The BPP is still pursuing the criminal cases in the Magistrate’s Court against Dinshaw, thereby further fuelling the animosity. Din­shaw has had a running feud with BPP chairman Yazdi Desai from the time both were on the BPP board as well as with trustee Kersi Randeria which resulted in physical altercations outside the Ballard Pier Magistrate’s Court last year. Plans to augment income by selling ownership flats in a building under construction at Godrej Baug and two buildings in Navsari are still pending.

With goodwill for the newly elected trustees running dry, the five-fold, across the board increase in service charge is bound to strain relations with the tenants. A letter from the Godrej Baug Residents Welfare Association noted the trustees elected 16 months ago promised transparency and responsiveness and so requested "an early hearing… It is our humble opinion that the increase in service charges is harsh and needs to be reconsidered." There were also complaints from residents of other colonies that many cars parked in the colonies were not registered with the BPP and hence did not pay parking charges. The parking charges vary from baug to baug. At Cusrow Baug it is around Rs 330 per car while at Godrej Baug the figure is Rs 400. (According to reports, the five Wadia baug residents’ association met the trustees and convinced them to reduce the proposed hike in parking charges. The service charge for Cusrow Baug, however, is Rs 1,100).

Residents also complained that the increase in service charges is standard, whether it is a one-room flat or a five-room apartment. They also contend the services rendered by the BPP are negligible. Whether the BPP relents on any of the increases is to be seen.

Desai had noted in his circular of January 7, 2017, "Today there is a huge gap of Rs 3.72 crores per annum between the income from rent/service/parking charges and the expenditure on BPP colonies. This excludes the 50% contribution by the BPP/Wadia trusts towards building repairs… Even with this increase the BPP will be able to bridge only 65% of the deficit. So, annual increases in service charges are an inevitable reality in the future."

Why has the response from the tenants to the earlier Wadia circular and the current one been so muted? Does not the Maharashtra Rent Act offer them protection from bullying landlords? Perhaps the tenants realize that outgoings outside of the baugs are higher, that private landlords provide no services and do not contribute towards repairs. Those residents who are on a leave and license agreement may fear that the licenses for their homes may not be renewed. Others may dread the time and expense involved in litigating with the trustees.

There is no association of colonies to put up a joint front. As a result, the trustees have had a free hand in running the baugs. Not much power devolves to the baug associations. Association heads complain that the BPP staff at the colonies ignore their instructions. Years ago Parsiana wrote about the Aderbad ownership building in Khareghat Colony whose residents are neither owners, licen­sees nor tenants.

Most leases are not transferred to the concerned parties as the BPP fears the inclusion of non-Parsis in the buildings. Despite that many baugs have non-Parsi spouses residing there and the trustees normally do not pursue the cases legally, more so if the non-Parsi spouse is a woman. In Dadar, however, the local association has filed a case against a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi residing in a covenanted building. The BPP policy on interfaith married couples residing in baugs is not made public.

While tenants realize that their rents are low and expenses are rising, the discomfort they experience stems largely from the failure of the BPP to communicate on a regular basis with them and the community at large. Except for the occasional "BPP Connect" column by Desai in the Parsi Times owned by Randeria, there is no other formal communication from the apex Bombay trust. No annual public meeting to give an account of their activities has been held as promised by the candidates while campaigning.

Ruling by diktat is not the answer to resolving long-term, complex issues.