The decision of three trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) to waive the Rs 750 service charge for 2,200 plus BPP flats defies all logic. The trustee who requested the waiver once it was tabled, Viraf Mehta, had stated in an article in Parsi Junction (PJ) of August 16, 2020 that the beleaguered trust struggles to pay salaries on time, delays doles, does not pay contractors for months and even years, is unable to pay its 50% share for building repairs and so on (see "Reversal of fortune," pg 17). In short, a trust that was created to aid the community is indirectly subsidized by the persons they are meant to assist. While other trusts across India and the world manage to raise funds to achieve their objectives, the onetime apex trust in the community was unable to even raise Rs 40 lakhs for repairs to one of its agiaries. The trust’s chairman and his wife had to personally chip in with the final Rs 10 lakhs so the work could be undertaken.
Judging from the market rates for outgoings of residential premises, Rs 750 is a paltry amount. Added to all the other outgoings, the total goes up. But it is still considerably less than in cosmopolitan areas, especially for houses built later. Some residents question why a person occupying a three-bedroom flat should pay the same outgoings as someone living in a one-room apartment. And why should a colony at Nepean Sea Road pay the same amount per flat as one in Goregaon?
They feel if a fee hike has to be imposed, one needs to consult the concerned persons, explain their difficulties, state the financial liabilities and seek their advice and counsel. Unilaterally carrying out decisions that affect a large number of beneficiaries is unacceptable. There has to be transparency and willingness to heed the concerns of those affected, they argue. This happens in cooperative housing societies. All the members have a say. A majority of 51% or two- thirds determine the outcome.
Outgoings can be calculated on a square foot, or a per flat basis. Once agreed upon, the proposal would be applicable to all. Concessions could be made for those financially disadvantaged as is presently being done.
Mehta states that the 50% BPP share for repair to buildings has been pending for a long time. The baug residents pay the full amount on the understanding the BPP will reimburse the amount. That is not happening. So even if service charges are waived, the tenants/licensees anyway are shelling out more money than they are required to. And since Mehta says contractors have not been paid for months and years, that means even the vendors are subsidizing the BPP.
What is more distressing is that matters will get worse. The approximate annual loss of Rs 1.65 crores due to the fee waiver that BPP trustee Kersi Randeria estimates can only add to the ignominy. All the grand projects that Mehta outlined in the PJ to raise resources are pipe dreams. At the most the Godrej Baug ownership building may materialize in the coming year, but how many takers will there be for the flats and at what price? Another deterrent to buyers would be several of the usual terms and conditions specified by the BPP such as barriers to non-Parsi spouses, no sale to single Parsi women (they may marry non-Parsis and their children would not be considered Parsi), resale only to a Parsi with whatever cut the BPP demands as its share, and so on.
If the recent BPP auctions were a flop, will there be buyers for more Parsi-only housing? Former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta thinks so. And on the present five-member board, he calls the shots. Trustees Armaity Tirandaz, son Viraf and Xerxes Dastur won their seats largely thanks to his considerable electoral expertise and connections. He is the person who initiated the auction of flats in the 1990s that saw the BPP coffers fill up due to the demand for Parsi homes at prices lower than the general market. But since that time the community’s demographics have changed. The number of BPP and Wadia baug flats is said to be over 4,200 (not the 5,566 flats they once boasted). Allowing for an occupancy of three Parsis per flat, around 12,000 Parsis out of a possible 32,000 to 35,000 in the city are housed in BPP flats. Many reside in buildings owned by other trusts such as the Garib Zarthostiona Rehethan Fund. The rest are in structures owned by private landlords or cooperative societies. How many would opt to live in a BPP baug can only be approximated by a professionally conducted market survey. But that costs money. To develop any more property without determining if there would be sufficient takers would be suicidal.
The number of earning members in the community is shrinking as the population dwindles and ages. The pandemic has added to the economic and demographic decline. The number of wealthy donors is reducing, not that many would have been inclined to donate to the BPP. More so when the trustees blithely waive away services charges to 60% of their occupants, regardless of the latter’s capacity to pay.
Viraf says he does not want to increase "the burden on beneficiaries." But that does not explain why the Wadia baug residents continue to be so "burdened." No doubt their colonies are better maintained, thanks to the Wadia baugs’ managing committee and the personal interest taken by a Wadia scion Nusli Wadia and, before him, his father Neville. The Wadia baugs are reported to have a surplus of Rs 150 crores; some of it comprises deposits received from successful bidders for flats. Whatever the amount, it is often eyed by some of the trustees to bail them out of their present financial straits. But Nusli is clear the funds are to be used for the upkeep of the Wadia baugs only. Otherwise by now the profligate trustees would have spent it all, including deposits (which are listed as liabilities in a balance sheet as they have to be returned at some stage) from successful bidders at auctions. While the Wadia flats are auctioned for crores of rupees, the settlors created the five colonies for the economically disadvantaged. This could give rise to litigation at some stage.
Exactly how the BPP is going to extricate itself from its present financial mess is unknown. If they continue as they have done, the consequences will be disastrous. Their liabilities are mounting and their income is not keeping pace with expenses. The future, like the recent past, is grim.