Chandra Shekhar Prabhu
The tenant, landlord and the government are the three corners of the Cess building and repairs issue. But they are three troubled corners. The tenant pays cess for repairs to the building he lives in, but often the landlord refuses to carry out these repairs. Yet the government continues to charge the tax, regardless of whether the repairs have been carried out.
The problem began with the old pagdi system. Under this, landlords could charge tenants huge sums of money, in cash, for repairs, but there was no accountability. It is only now that the law states the pagdi, or money paid to the landlord, has to be in cheque form, to minimise the siphoning off of cash.
Till now, it was usually the MHADA which has stepped in to repair the cess buildings, due to lack of unity among the tenants. Landlords, taking advantage of this situation, shrugged off their responsibility in carrying out repairs. Or if they did, it was usually a patchwork job. The contractor brought in for the job could, for instance, get away by carrying out cosmetic repairs. As a result, the problem has persisted and buildings have begun to crumble.
Today, surveys no longer rely on just visual inspection of a building. Structural audits have also become more scientific and technologically-advanced, aided by precision gadgets. But the thing that needs to fall into place is tenants. They should be more proactive in ensuring that the pagdi charged by the landlord actually goes towards repairs. Or, if the original tenants still reside in a particular building, they could get together and take care of 50 per cent of the costs, and force the landlord to pitch in the rest.
Every year, on an average, tenants of about 18-19,000 buildings in the city together pay the BMC Rs40 crore as cess. The BMC, MHADA pay Rs10 crore, while the government pays the housing body another Rs40 crore. This is an adequate amount pooled to repair any building. Cases, like Pimpalwadi redevelopment, can be avoided if tenants step in to carry out repairs along with the landlord. By calling for tenders and getting good quality construction done, they can actually extend the life of a building by 30-40 years.
The government’s policies are contrary to its claims. Builders are there to develop vacant land, not turn predators who are trying to grab property from the poor and middle class Mumbaikar. This is, what, is happening today, and the government must step in to prevent, not facilitate this. As architects, we believe that landlords should be allowed to perform the role of a developer, and let tenants get their share of a building. Only then can there be harmony in this uneasy equation.
Prabhu is an architect. He spoke to Neeta Kolhatkar
