Readers' Forum
“Your good judgment”
Beechara (unfortunate) Jerbaimai built Nowroz Baug (NB) and other colonies for lower and middle-class Parsis, but now it will be for the upwardly mobile and elite Parsis. All present tenants/leave and licensees at NB, I presume, will become flat owners and thus crorepatis.
In the article "Your good judgment” (Parsiana, April 7, 2013) Nariman Mehta, the doyen of NB urged the Magnificent Seven [the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees] to consider the objectives of Jerbai when she constructed the colonies. But the reality is that those objectives were thrown to the winds long ago, and it is pugree/pheta/interest free deposit raj. So where does the question of considering her objectives arise?
Dinshaw Mehta, BPP chairman, dangled a carrot, and simultaneously a stick, stating that the present residents will get 20 to 25 percent additional carpet area. That is indeed generous. He also mentioned that "existing tenants and licensees of the colony would be given the new flats on ownership basis at double the present outgoings” (so be prepared to fork out).
In answer to a query Mehta and BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry said a society would be formed and conveyance executed. And then again, Mehta says the new towers would be conveyed to the NB housing society but the land would remain with the BPP. So what is being conveyed? Once the flats are sold and the society formed, the building automatically belongs to the society.
Some recent amendments to the law say that if a builder does not convey the land to the society within a stipulated period it will be deemed to have been conveyed to the society. In an article in The Times of India (TOI) dated February 17, 2013 it is mentioned: "The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 2005 states that in cases where a developer fails to execute the conveyance in favor of a co-operative society the latter can make an application for deemed conveyance.” (This applies to housing societies where the land is to be conveyed. The BPP is entering into a lease and not a sale agreement, so the question of conveyance should not arise — editors)
A platoon consisting of the Magnificent Seven plus the Wadia Committee plus the core NB committee will manage the corpus. Under which Co-operative Society’s Act or bye-law will this august body function?
The ultimatum has already been given. Take it or leave it. No further discussion. The present lot staying in NB who will become future flat owners will have to put on their thinking caps and do some back of the paper calculations. First and foremost they are flat owners only by virtue of holding shares of the society, and the ownership of the property vests in the society and the BPP. In 40-storey towers with lifts and service lifts what will the maintenance cost be per tower (after six years)? What about other maintenance costs of the buildings of a routine nature, not to mention the additional amenities mentioned in the article?
Will each tower be a separate society or will there be only one society for all the four towers? If it is the latter, each member of the society will have to contribute whenever required for repairs to other towers as well as other expenses.
What about the managing committee of the society, which is mandatory as per the Act? Will they have any role to play or have any say if the Magnificent Seven, the Wadia Committee and the NB committee are going to hold the purse strings (corpus)?
The 97th constitutional amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 mandates that all societies adopt the amended model bye-laws. As per bye-law 173(a) a society is bound to form a grievance committee and redressal committee as provided under sec 89 AB. According to bye-law 173(b) the general body of the society shall appoint a Grievance Settlement and Redressal Committee.
In reality, who will call the shots — the Magnificent Seven, the Wadia Committee, the NB core committee combine, or the managing committee?
In The Economic Times of April 18, 2013, there is an article titled "Maintenance fees for luxury apartments scale new heights.” Not only the NB crorepatis but also those bawas whose income is Rs 90,000 per month or more should read it. Such towers with various amenities need specialists for good maintenance. Of course the article deals with apartments of 2,500 sq ft and over. However, NB with playground, club, hall, and what have you, will necessarily need specialists to look after the property.
That is about the costs and expenses. But what will happen if a flat owner or his/her children marry a parjat (non-Parsi) and reside with him/her? What if a Parsi wants a parjat spouse’s name included on the share certificate as joint/co-member at the time of becoming a member, or later on? What if a member wants to enter a parjat’s name as an associate member along with him or her? Will such members be at par with members of cosmopolitan co-operative societies or will they be at a disadvantage? What if a Parsi keeps a parjat as a paying guest, or sublets his flat?
Does a Parsi have any fundamental rights like others who are members of cosmopolitan societies?
According to TOI of November 19, 2012, "Can housing societies refuse tenants? Yes they can, but if they infringe on the fundamental rights of a citizen they can be challenged in a court of law.” Two instances were mentioned in the article. In the case of Sanwarmal Kejriwal v/s Vishwa Co-operative Society and others, the Supreme Court had upheld the member’s right to keep tenants of his choice. And in the Bombay High Court ruling in 2000 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud rejected the amendment of a bye-law framed by the St Anthony Co-operative Housing Society which wanted to restrict the membership to Catholics. (As a Parsis-only covenant already exists, the court may or may not view the case differently. In Dadar, the covenant so far holds good — editors.)
What begs an answer is: Are the fundamental rights of bawas and bawis different and inferior to the fundamental rights of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc?
But then anything can happen in the next four years. However, Jerbai’s baugs will no longer be for the poor or the middle class; they will now be for those poor whose monthly income is Rs 90,000 who can afford to buy flats and pay maintenance charges.
In the article "Your good judgment” (Parsiana, April 7, 2013) Nariman Mehta, the doyen of NB urged the Magnificent Seven [the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees] to consider the objectives of Jerbai when she constructed the colonies. But the reality is that those objectives were thrown to the winds long ago, and it is pugree/pheta/interest free deposit raj. So where does the question of considering her objectives arise? Dinshaw Mehta, BPP chairman, dangled a carrot, and simultaneously a stick, stating that the present residents will get 20 to 25 percent additional carpet area. That is indeed generous. He also mentioned that "existing tenants and licensees of the colony would be given the new flats on ownership basis at double the present outgoings” (so be prepared to fork out).
In answer to a query Mehta and BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry said a society would be formed and conveyance executed. And then again, Mehta says the new towers would be conveyed to the NB housing society but the land would remain with the BPP. So what is being conveyed? Once the flats are sold and the society formed, the building automatically belongs to the society.
Some recent amendments to the law say that if a builder does not convey the land to the society within a stipulated period it will be deemed to have been conveyed to the society. In an article in The Times of India (TOI) dated February 17, 2013 it is mentioned: "The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 2005 states that in cases where a developer fails to execute the conveyance in favor of a co-operative society the latter can make an application for deemed conveyance.” (This applies to housing societies where the land is to be conveyed. The BPP is entering into a lease and not a sale agreement, so the question of conveyance should not arise — editors)
A platoon consisting of the Magnificent Seven plus the Wadia Committee plus the core NB committee will manage the corpus. Under which Co-operative Society’s Act or bye-law will this august body function?
The ultimatum has already been given. Take it or leave it. No further discussion. The present lot staying in NB who will become future flat owners will have to put on their thinking caps and do some back of the paper calculations. First and foremost they are flat owners only by virtue of holding shares of the society, and the ownership of the property vests in the society and the BPP. In 40-storey towers with lifts and service lifts what will the maintenance cost be per tower (after six years)? What about other maintenance costs of the buildings of a routine nature, not to mention the additional amenities mentioned in the article?
Will each tower be a separate society or will there be only one society for all the four towers? If it is the latter, each member of the society will have to contribute whenever required for repairs to other towers as well as other expenses.
What about the managing committee of the society, which is mandatory as per the Act? Will they have any role to play or have any say if the Magnificent Seven, the Wadia Committee and the NB committee are going to hold the purse strings (corpus)?
The 97th constitutional amendment to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 mandates that all societies adopt the amended model bye-laws. As per bye-law 173(a) a society is bound to form a grievance committee and redressal committee as provided under sec 89 AB. According to bye-law 173(b) the general body of the society shall appoint a Grievance Settlement and Redressal Committee.
In reality, who will call the shots — the Magnificent Seven, the Wadia Committee, the NB core committee combine, or the managing committee?
In The Economic Times of April 18, 2013, there is an article titled "Maintenance fees for luxury apartments scale new heights.” Not only the NB crorepatis but also those bawas whose income is Rs 90,000 per month or more should read it. Such towers with various amenities need specialists for good maintenance. Of course the article deals with apartments of 2,500 sq ft and over. However, NB with playground, club, hall, and what have you, will necessarily need specialists to look after the property.
That is about the costs and expenses. But what will happen if a flat owner or his/her children marry a parjat (non-Parsi) and reside with him/her? What if a Parsi wants a parjat spouse’s name included on the share certificate as joint/co-member at the time of becoming a member, or later on? What if a member wants to enter a parjat’s name as an associate member along with him or her? Will such members be at par with members of cosmopolitan co-operative societies or will they be at a disadvantage? What if a Parsi keeps a parjat as a paying guest, or sublets his flat?
Does a Parsi have any fundamental rights like others who are members of cosmopolitan societies?
According to TOI of November 19, 2012, "Can housing societies refuse tenants? Yes they can, but if they infringe on the fundamental rights of a citizen they can be challenged in a court of law.” Two instances were mentioned in the article. In the case of Sanwarmal Kejriwal v/s Vishwa Co-operative Society and others, the Supreme Court had upheld the member’s right to keep tenants of his choice. And in the Bombay High Court ruling in 2000 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud rejected the amendment of a bye-law framed by the St Anthony Co-operative Housing Society which wanted to restrict the membership to Catholics. (As a Parsis-only covenant already exists, the court may or may not view the case differently. In Dadar, the covenant so far holds good — editors.)
What begs an answer is: Are the fundamental rights of bawas and bawis different and inferior to the fundamental rights of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc?
But then anything can happen in the next four years. However, Jerbai’s baugs will no longer be for the poor or the middle class; they will now be for those poor whose monthly income is Rs 90,000 who can afford to buy flats and pay maintenance charges.
BEHRAM AGA
behram_r_aga@yahoo.co.in
behram_r_aga@yahoo.co.in
Since some of the buildings in Nowroz Baug (NB) were about 100 years old, the idea of the redevelopment of NB was floated in 2008. Whilst a majority of the residents were, in principle, open to the idea, considering the complexity and far reaching implications of a redevelopment project on the current as well as the future generations, infrequent and informal talks and some exchanges of written communication had taken place.
Although the pace of preliminary discussions on the various aspects of redevelopment picked up since 2011, in the absence of a formal plan and proposal in writing, no decision had been arrived at or agreed upon.
On March 24, 2013, a meeting was called by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) at the Nowroz Baug playground which was attended by Nusli and Ness Wadia, Dhun Gagrat, the entire BPP board of trustees, BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah, architect Hafeez Contractor and his team and residents of Nowroz Baug. A presentation explained various phases of the redevelopment plan for NB and a brief idea of some of its aspects was conveyed by BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta. The meeting concluded with the trustees promising to send a detailed proposal in writing, which is still awaited by the residents. After the meeting, Nusli and Ness Wadia were urged to take a round of the colony and the joy of the residents knew no bounds as they waved from their balconies or came down to greet them personally and even have photographs taken with them.
The NB residents wanted to form an independent body to liaise and negotiate with the BPP, the managing committee of the N. N. and R. N. Wadia Baugs as well as the developer to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Elections were held on April 14, 2013 in which a majority of residents participated and the Nowroz Baug Residents’ Redevelopment Committee (NBRRC) came into existence. A total of 26 block representatives were elected from each of the 13 buildings to form the managing committee of the NBRRC.
Once the eagerly awaited detailed proposal is received from BPP, discussions will take place between the managing committee members and the residents of NB, after which actual negotiations will begin.
The newly elected managing committee has appointed the undersigned to act as spokespersons on behalf of NB residents with the media in all matters pertaining to redevelopment of the colony.
To keep the residents updated on developments and to educate them on various aspects of redevelopment, the managing committee of NBRRC has called a meeting of the general body of all residents of NB on Sunday, May 12, 2013.
Although the pace of preliminary discussions on the various aspects of redevelopment picked up since 2011, in the absence of a formal plan and proposal in writing, no decision had been arrived at or agreed upon.
On March 24, 2013, a meeting was called by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) at the Nowroz Baug playground which was attended by Nusli and Ness Wadia, Dhun Gagrat, the entire BPP board of trustees, BPP chief executive officer Mehli Colah, architect Hafeez Contractor and his team and residents of Nowroz Baug. A presentation explained various phases of the redevelopment plan for NB and a brief idea of some of its aspects was conveyed by BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta. The meeting concluded with the trustees promising to send a detailed proposal in writing, which is still awaited by the residents. After the meeting, Nusli and Ness Wadia were urged to take a round of the colony and the joy of the residents knew no bounds as they waved from their balconies or came down to greet them personally and even have photographs taken with them.
The NB residents wanted to form an independent body to liaise and negotiate with the BPP, the managing committee of the N. N. and R. N. Wadia Baugs as well as the developer to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Elections were held on April 14, 2013 in which a majority of residents participated and the Nowroz Baug Residents’ Redevelopment Committee (NBRRC) came into existence. A total of 26 block representatives were elected from each of the 13 buildings to form the managing committee of the NBRRC.
Once the eagerly awaited detailed proposal is received from BPP, discussions will take place between the managing committee members and the residents of NB, after which actual negotiations will begin.
The newly elected managing committee has appointed the undersigned to act as spokespersons on behalf of NB residents with the media in all matters pertaining to redevelopment of the colony.
To keep the residents updated on developments and to educate them on various aspects of redevelopment, the managing committee of NBRRC has called a meeting of the general body of all residents of NB on Sunday, May 12, 2013.
KEKI MEHTA, President, NBRRC
ADI DOCTOR, Vice president, NBRRC
ADI DOCTOR, Vice president, NBRRC
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive