rent is approx. Rs. 350/- p.m. for 3500 sq. ft. of area in posh locality

Dear Clara,
Thanks for replying to my mail. It is rarest of the day when I have received a reply of my mail. This speaks volumes about your clean personality. Your replies too are very straight and non evasive .Thanks once again.

I would like to throw light and press some more questions based on facts given by you:

1. You have stated that the rent is approx. Rs. 350/- p.m. for 3500 sq. ft. of area in posh locality which means just 0.10 paisa per sq. ft.. The ongoing rate for maintenance  in your ownership flat in that area is Rs. 10 per  sq. ft. means even to maintain your own flat in co-op housing society you would be paying 35000/- per flat where as landlord is getting Rs. 350/-.In reality landlord should get atleast 20% higher then prevailing market rate as he too has to earn and sustain his family on this income as originally he let out the premises with the purpose of making  profit and not for doing charity.
2. Pl. note that this Rs. 350/- is also not his nett income. Landlord has to compulsorily pay income tax on income from rent. Then he pays municipal assessment tax , Maharashtra land revenue tax, hafta to various municipal dept as they have various powers to sue landlords ( which in case of society the Hon. secretary pays from society funds).If you are appointed property manager of such tenanted buildings then can you maintain the building with these meager rent which a coolie does not accept. Then mentioning  that lift  is purchased and maintained by tenants  or tenants are  repairing the building  is  sly  and putting wrong emphasis. I am willing to add  Rs. 10000/- per year from my pocket to rent collected and challenge  any one to  maintain  our building and  pay all taxes  from same. Forget about giving me profits from the property / investment in property.
3. It is unthinkable that any landlord can redevelop the building without the cooperation of tenants ( as per present law and delaying courts).What must have happened is that tenants must have asked to become property owner after paying a particular price. There may be balance FSI or better market value to this property and hence landlady does not want to give up her ownership. The landlords have stuck to their property for decades inspite of losses, hardships and headaches  and court cases with some attachment to property and some hope of gaining profit one day hence no landlord will normally relinquish ownership unless some other circumstances demand.
4. The tenants should offer landlord the  construction cost and vacate their premises for 18 months for redevelopment and get back the same after new building is ready. The balance area has to go to her on which tenants must be eying on. Or govt. who have made mess of Mumbai by draconian and impractical rent act have to offer extra FSI like given for housing developments for slums so landlord themselves can bear the cost of construction and redevelop the property and tenants and landlords can live happily thereafter. I repeat if any landlord thinks he can get his building vacated easily and will then redevelop / sell is living in fool’s paradise.Pl. ask Mr. Chanrai to give facts of their offer to landlady. I am sure they think she is cornered and want to take over ownership her of property?
5. The laws/ systems are made such that everyone is running to court (and advocates advise all to go to court) on every worthless purpose too. Be it family court, accident tribunal, cheque bouncing  or rent act the courts are flooded with cases. It is advisable to have Panchayat type of system/ ombudsman/ lok adalat  in each municipal constituency . There should be counselors and mediators in each police station to avoid costly and lengthy litigation which in time to come becomes personal revenge tool and harassment tool .But it is dreaming too much in this selfish bureaucratic and political environment. All tenants and landlord run to court as they have no other redressal forum and forum which can bring them together. And the divide increases between loss making landlords and over demanding tenants.
6. Pl. note that tenants are neither vacating nor allowing increase in rent (where as all other expenses they incur at latest price) is because of rent act. Same rent act says if landlord does not carry out repairs and maintenance then tenants can do so and deduct 5% of rent every month till they recover their spent amount. Then why they should feel bad or proud by carrying out the repairs all by themselves. Follow the rent act in toto and don't oblige landlord by carrying out repairs and proudly showing plaque and narrating same to newspapers. Can one carry out repairs with rent of Rs. 350/- p.m.. in which he can hardly buy a bag of cement. Only thing as honest and right minded citizen landlord has to do is to contribute his share for area occupied by him or services used by him which are maintained jointly.
7. Hope this will clarify few things.Pl. note that I don't bear malice towards you or any tenant but am here to raise voice against decades of whipping of landlords.

Regards,                                           
Alok Tholiya
(Insurance, Mutual Fund, Bonds, Real Estate)
Tholiya Marketing and Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Marigold Party Hall,
Tholiya Bhavan,
10th Rd., Santacruz East,
Mumbai 400055
M:9324225699

www.digambarjains.com
The matrimonial web site for Digambar Jains

Also subscribe to my very popular yahoogroup:
Subscribe: menow-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

----- Original Message ----
From: Clara Lewis
To: Mr Alok Tholiya
Sent: Wednesday, 28 May, 2008 1:47:49 PM
Subject: Re: Tenants locked in repair tussle published in TOI on 26th May


Dear Mr. Tholiya,

Thank you for your response. You have asked several questions related to the story we carried on Sita Kunj building. The answers are as follows:


Mr. Alok Tholiya (tholiya@yahoo.com) wrote*:
>
>Dear Clara,
>Hi,
>1.    This is about ur above article. Did you ask the tenants how much rent
>they are paying per month to landlady?

Rs 300- 380 per month

>2.    Do you know that there is a law that all tempos older
>then 15 years have to be discarded? Why? Then why 50 year and older building which
>are falling year after year and precious life and property are lost are not asked
>to be compulsorily redeveloped rehousing old occupants?

Yes I know about the law with regard to tempos. I am also aware that in case of a majority of buildings (unless well maintained) the economic life is only 60 years after which they need to be pulled down.
The landlady of Sita Kunj wants redevelopment without the tenants ie she does not want them in the new building. The tenants had even offered her the market price per flat which she has turned down. At present it is the tenants who pay for the electricity and maintenance of the building.

>3.    You have reported that tenants are saying she wants to
>redevelop her building. Is it a crime to redevelop? Even most of the new
>buildings of flat owners are being redeveloped with the availability of extra
>FSI and TDR.. Then why she should not be cooperated by law, officials and
>tenants to redevelop her property. Govt. should ask banks to finance landlords
>to redevelop their property giving them 4 FSI as is being given to builders
>developing unauthorized slums.

No crime in redeveloping but the situation is as I have informed you above.
>4.    You have reported that tenants apprehend that landlady
>wants the building to collapse .While you have also reported that she stays on
>top floor. Will her life and property be not in danger if building falls?
>5.    You have reported that she stays on top floor and
>terrace is just above her flat. How on earth the water leaking from terrace
>enters lower floors to flats of tenants? Have you personally satisfied yourself
>against this allegation and can you elaborate on this? Normally water will
>first enter landlady’s flat. And if there is leakage on her floor too then
>water will percolate down to lower floor. You say tenants flat got flooded. Do
>you know the dictionary meaning of flooded, leakage, seepage? Have you used word
>leakage to create bad opinion about fraternity of landlords the shelter providers?
>Have you used this adjective under influence of Trustee of Jaslok hospital? The
>truth is known to only Holy Jesus and you.

If you read my article again you will see I have mentioned that in 1986 the landlady constructed her flat on the common terrace with the consent of all the tenants. She now claims that the terrace is no longer part of the cessed building but rather her personal property. Even I pointed out to her that the terrace is in dire need of structural repairs and if it collapses she too stands to lose her flat and life.

I am told that she does not reside in her flat here as she has another home (a 13-storeyed building at Walkeshwar). She had even approached the courts to not allow the repairs and her petition was dismissed. In the past she did not allow the lift to be repaired. The tenants had to approach the courts so that they could instal a new lift. If you visit the building you will see a plaque put up inside the lift mentioning that the lift was purchased by the tenants and is maintained by them.

>6.    Did you ask tenants to support landlady in rebuilding
>as there is a limit to repairs. Is not it unwise to spend huge sum of money on
>dilapidated building which you say is getting flooded.

Like I have mentioned earlier the tenants have offered to purchase their flats at the market price and she has refused.

>7.    Has Times of India been only getting news about
>suffering tenants? Why don’t you visit two of my buildings to see how much as a
>landlord I have to suffer and tenants are staying free and because of biases
>reporting of newspapers be it Police or courts are all having sympathy towards tenants.
This is not true as you can see that unlike in a majority of cases where tenants refuse to shell out money for anything, here the tenants have been pro-active in maintaining the building.

I realise you are a very harassed landlord but as you can see this is not a biased story against landlords sympathising with unruly tenants. The story clearly shows that it is the other way round. The tenants including the landlady are wealthy and yet cannot reach a common ground for maintaining the building.

Thank you,

clara lewis