Archive

The sudden waiver of the Rs 750 service charge levied on tenements in all Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) colonies, barring the Wadia baugs, by three trustees on July 29, 2020, caught everyone unprepared. Trustees Armaity Tirandaz, Viraf Mehta and Xerxes Dastur voted to scrap the charge, while trustees Noshir Dadrawala and Kersi Randeria absented themselves from the Zoom meet. As BPP chairman Yazdi Desai is recovering from a stroke, he did not participate; the seventh trustee Zarir Bhathena expired in June and elections are still to be held to fill his vacancy.  
When questioned how the impoverished trust that struggles to pay salaries on time and withholds doles was going to compensate for the approximately Rs 1.65 crore annual loss, two of the three trustees ducked the question and a third had scanty knowledge of the figures. In response to Parsiana’s WhatsApp (WA) query on August 7 as to "How many flats affected and total loss of revenue?... How will BPP manage colonies without this income? Trust reversal does not affect Wadia baugs?” seniormost trustee Tirandaz, who chaired the meeting,  replied, "All under discussion.”
On August 18, however, Tirandaz sent a letter to "The occupants of BPP baugs and colonies,” stating that due to the "loss of jobs as well as income due to the pandemic… the trustees of the BPP have unanimously decided to fully waive the additional service charge of Rs 750 per month with effect from September 2020.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Dastur, who was the most forthright of the three replied to our August 7 WA query with a "Happy to chat.” He indicated the service charge was controversial and that "one-third” of the occupants "were not paying... Legally it’s difficult to enforce” the fee. "Constant litigation with the tenants is not worth it. We should work on a middle path.”  Of the 2,700 or so BPP flats, "400 to 500 are not paying” or have sought or received a waiver, he stated. Until the waiver comes into effect "everybody should pay up.”
The five Wadia baugs reportedly comprise 1,493 flats whose occupants continue to pay the Rs 750 additional service charge.
Mehta who was sent the same query on August 7 regarding the finances did not reply initially. A reminder was sent on August 11 when he said he would "revert post today’s meeting” but after  the BPP Zoom meet replied, "I believe Xerxes has already spoken to you on this.” The trustees meet virtually, not in the BPP boardroom or elsewhere. When Parsiana replied, "Yes, but wanted to know how you swill cover the income shortfall and meet expenses,” Mehta responded, "Nothing discussed in meeting...yet.” He added, however, "We are not looking to recover this by increasing the burden on the beneficiaries, that much is certain.” The Wadia baug beneficiaries, however, will continue to be so burdened.
According to the Parsi Junction (PJ)  issue of August 9 it was Mehta who  "requested the board to completely remove the Rs 750 increase” citing the economic hardships caused by the pandemic and lockdown. At the same time he noted in the publication that money had been mismanaged "to fuel personal vendettas and appease egos (hence) today the BPP struggles to make staff payment on time. We are not able to make on time payments for second and third child beneficiaries, (the) mobed amelioration scheme has been put on the back burner, medical and educationl help to the needy has been drastically reduced, 50% share of repairs cost paid by BPP has been deferred indefinitely, refunds due to residents are being delayed or postponed, payments to contractors are not done for months or even years. On numerous occasions in the past I have asked for a truce” but unfortunately the  overtures were ignored.
In the PJ issue of August 16, Mehta outlined his plans to raise funds, "We have Rs 15 crores waiting to be earned...through our Navsari project...Another over Rs 200 crores...from the Godrej Baug ownership building...We have 20 ownership flats in Panthaky Baug lying vacant...We are working on the possibility of one more ownership building in Cusrow Baug...We can have Dhunbaiwadi developed free of cost to the BPP...We have Bharucha Baug, Nowroz Baug, Dadar Parsi Colony and Contractor Baug redevelopments to work on.”
He believes all this is possible if the trustees "get the ball rolling faster” with the goal of making "the BPP Great Again.” But most of these developments have been pending for decades and some are mired in litigation or bureaucratic formalities. Any quick resolution will prove elusive, specially as the trustees’ internecine disputes persist. Also with the community’s dwindling numbers, buyers will be scarce.
Mehta’s optimism is not shared by his co-trustees Randeria and Dadrawala. In a phone conversation on August 11, Randeria put the annual loss due to the service charge waiver at Rs 1.65 crores. He said of the 2,733 or so BPP flats, some were vacant and 334 were not paying but 88% were. The Wadia baugs continue to pay a total service charge of Rs 1,100. "The Wadia baugs systematically increase the rates periodically,” he noted. Randeria dismissed the notion that the service charge was illegal. He cited the opinion of Small Causes Court lawyer Kersi Bhot which said the amount was "part of rent, not separate.” If illegal, the amount would have to be refunded although the BPP did not have the funds to do so.
While Randeria and Dadrawala did not attend the July 29 meeting, ironically it was Randeria who put the item of service charge waiver on the agenda! He along with Desai, Dadrawala and Bhathena had voted for the increase in service charges. The Parsi Times, of which he is the owner, in its August 8 edition carries his article noting that on July 28 he sent an email to his co-trustees proposing two items: 7a, was to discuss "the issues raised by (Godrej Baug resident) Arzan Ghadially on whether the service charges were legally valid and if so the same to be charged uniformly and enforced for all; if illegal, ‘the same to be refunded to those who have been paying these charges over the last three-and-a-half years.’”
   The second item, 7b, Randeria noted, was to "discuss the full waiver of the Rs 750 and Rs 200 garbage collection across all colonies… Since all the trustees who attended this meeting were always in favor of reducing the service charge but now have instead accepted my agenda item 7b, (partially, garbage charges not waived — editors) I am certain this must have been done with a lot of application of mind, detailed discussion about the financial impact and how this deficit would be addressed by the trustees.”
In a phone conversation with Parsiana on August 14 Dadrawala noted that prior to the Rs 750 service charge there had been no increase in the rates for the past 12 years, except for the Rs 200 garbage collection charge. About two to three years ago, the baug representatives met the trustees and asked for the amount be reduced to Rs 400. The compromise reportedly was accepted by the BPP board but subsequently rejected when the trustees next convened again with more members present.
Dadrawala, however, felt the charge was not excessive. He noted people spent more money in a single evening to go to a movie; paying guests in Dadar shelled out Rs 40,000 a month for a single room. As for raising revenue from auction of flats, he pointed out, "In recent history all the auctions have flopped... For a Cusrow Baug flat there was not a single bid.”
In the last 16 auctions held between June 2018 and March 2020, for four there were no bidders and for two, only one bidder each showed up. The final bid amounts for the flats auctioned ranged  from Rs 60,00,000 (from a single bidder) to Rs 4,80,00,000 (for a flat in Cusrow Baug). The successful bidders become licensees of the BPP, not tenants or owners. The BPP has a policy of auctioning "premier flats,” namely those in the Wadia baugs. But a clause by the settlors in the trust deed states the property is for the needy. If someone were to take up the matter before the Charity Commissioner, there would be a long legal tussle by the end of which if the BPP lost, they could stand to have their registration as a trust  cancelled, an extreme and hopefully unlikely occurrence, though, opined two trustees.
Two lay activists have been key participants in the issue, Phiroze Amroliwalla and Ghadially. Amroliwalla, a former unsuccessful trusteeship candidate is viewed as being close to Mehta while Ghadially is believed to favor Randeria. Both baug residents were critical of the initial move to impose the additional Rs 750 service charge, with Amroliwalla reportedly terming the levy illegal. He noted the disparity in charging the same amount to a tenant in Khan Estate who occupies a 350 sq ft flat and an occupant in Khareghat Colony who has a 2,500 sq ft flat. When this lacuna was pointed out to the trustees at a meeting, they allegedly replied, "Té calculation kaun karé (who will do all those calculations)?” He believed going by the square footage of a flat would be a "fair method for determining the outgoings.” He noted beside the Rs 750 service charge, there was an earlier one of Rs 150, plus Rs 200 garbage collection fee, rent, water tax, property tax, repairs to the building, security charges, car, scooter parking levies, etc.
"Sit down, discuss and go into the nitty-gritty. Go about it in a democratic way. Convince us, you can’t bully us,” Amroliwalla stated. As to whom the trustees should consult in the community, he explained, "Out of 20,000 (occupants), 500 may reply. They could submit their queries, suggestions, objections in writing. Fix a meeting for 200 or 300.” He further suggests the BPP cut down on costs such as "unwanted litigation” and also rationalize other "arbitrary, ad hoc” expenses.
Ghadially recalled that at a meeting in the BPP boardroom representatives of various baugs summoned to discuss the imposition of service charges termed the increase "unfair” and pointed out the service charge notice was "backdated,” a point also made by Amroliwalla. The levy was charged beginning January 2017 but the notice was reportedly received in the last week of January. The trustees agreed in future they would discuss the issue with the representatives instead of unilaterally raising the rates. The trustees explained the dire financial status of the trust to justify the levy. The representatives informed the various residents and 85 to 90%, including Ghadially paid the charges, he said. Occupants who are unable to pay are given concessions.
When the levy was allegedly termed illegal in an article in PJ published and edited by Kersi Sethna, a close friend and ally of former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta, Ghadially had second thoughts on paying the service charge. The article alleged many had not paid the Rs 750. Ghadially wrote to the BPP but received no response, he said. A reminder was sent and he was informed the matter would "be discussed by the board.” A complete waiver then followed. Since the representatives had only asked for a reduction, "We didn’t understand the waiver. We had offered to pay Rs 350.” He assumed, "They (the BPP) must be having a lot of money. They must have considered all the financial implications.”
Ghadially, like Amroliwalla  believes that the ‘one size fits all’ approach is wrong. "Each baug should be self-sufficient.” He notes in Godrej Baug the outgoing per flat is approximately Rs 5,000 per month. All the occupants are licensees, not tenants. He noted in his residential block the BPP collected Rs 35 lakhs for repairs while the actual cost was Rs 34 lakhs; but the additional amount was not refunded. The BPP initially bore 50% of the repair costs to a building while the tenants/licencees contributed the rest. But of late the hard-pressed BPP has asked occupants to pay the full amount on the understanding that as and when the BPP has the funds they will reimburse their 50%. But allowing for the grave funds position detailed by Viraf, exacerbated by the pandemic and the absence of donors, any possibility of reimbursement in the near future, is remote. And with the service charge waiver, maybe never.
As for deposits netted from auction of flats, Ghadially rightly noted these are viewed as liabilities in a balance sheet. At some stage they will have to be returned to the depositors. "How will you repay? Where is the income?”
Dinshaw Mehta who opposed any service charges being levied on baug residents, welcomed the waiver. "It should have been done long ago,” he told Parsiana on August 18. He claims many baug residents, including some in Cusrow Baug, have incomes below the poverty line! When asked why the waiver was then not applied to the Wadia baugs, he replied they did not object as they lived in "princely quarters. (They) don’t mind paying.” If however they wanted a waiver, "let them make a representation to the BPP and let the trustees decide.”
The BPP colonies and the Wadia baugs together are said to comprise 4,226 flats (some stand-alone buildings may marginally increase the total number. The figure is in sharp contrast to the total number of flats the BPP used to claim in the past. In the BPP Review published  around 10 years ago when Dinshaw was chairman, the publication said the trust "provides economical housing and rent subsidies to the deserving in its vast housing colonies comprising 485 buildings having over 5,566 flats.” When Parsiana asked Dinshaw on August 11 for the total figure, he replied, "don’t recollect now.”) Some trustees opine there should be no distinction between the two and eye the Rs 150 crore or so deposits said to be with the Wadia baugs as well as the annual surplus of around Rs 7.9 crores. The BPP baugs in contrast have a deficit of Rs 4.17 crores. But Wadia scion Nusli Wadia asserts the funds generated from Wadia baugs are for their upkeep.
Dinshaw, like his son, Viraf, also believes the BPP has "more than enough resources...provided there is unanimity.” He inquired why the BPP had earlier caused unnecessary litigation by denying some trustees access to papers, a trend ironically started by him when he was chairman. He listed the various properties that can be redeveloped and the flats that can be auctioned. But when told that the auctions had been a flop, he disputed the statement. He said the unsold flats were unsaleable to begin with and wanted to know the details of each building and flat number. He explained the demand for BPP flats would remain as tenants could encash their tenancy elsewhere and avail of lower priced flats in BPP colonies.
When Parsiana stated the lack of interest by bidders could be due to the community’s dwindling numbers, fears on being licencees instead of tenants or owners and also the apprehension of the trustees’ endemic infighting that could block the auction of flats in the future, he queried, "Why are you so negative?”
The precarious finances of the once apex trust leave no room for optimism.