Mumbai: What about us, ask residents of 15 Lalbaug buildings

Exterior view of Narayan Ashram Buildings No 6 and 7, both declared ‘dangerously’ dilapidated by MHADA

While on Monday the residents of 19 dilapidated buildings near Elphinstone bridge were assured by the state government that they would be rehabilitated in the same area to facilitate the demolition and reconstruction of the bridge, just a few kilometres away, the residents of 15 buildings - who have been served eviction notices by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) - remain clueless about their future.

If the residents of Elphinstone are being heard and given justice, then why can't the residents of Lalbaug be heard? If there is a disagreement between parties that is delaying redevelopment, they can certainly approach higher authorities. The authorities will be duty-bound to help them without bias. If this can be done for one group of residents, it should be done for others as well," said local MLA Ajay Choudhary.

MHADA's evacuation notice displayed inside the premises of Narayan Ashram Building No 6. Pics/Shadab Khan

When it comes to building redevelopment, residents' opposition is often a major hurdle. But in the case of Narayan Ashram (Building No 6) in Lalbaug, it's not the tenants blocking the process - it's a dispute between the landowner and a potential developer. Last year, MHADA declared the building dilapidated and has since issued multiple notices to both the landowner and the tenants. A recent notice sent to Lalbaugcha Raja idol maker Santosh Kambli stated that he must vacate his flat immediately due to a dangerously tilted wall. "The rear side of the wall between shop no 4 and 5 is buckled and has settled. It is in a dilapidated condition and may collapse at any moment, resulting in loss of life and property. It is therefore necessary to vacate the premises immediately to avoid danger," the notice read.

However, Kambli is refusing to vacate. "We're not against redevelopment," he said. "But how do you expect us to give consent without knowing who the developer is? A few days ago, our landowner said he was in talks with a developer and showed us some paperwork. We insisted on meeting the developer, but that hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile, the landowner keeps delaying things on technical grounds, and now we're being harassed by the authorities through such notices." "We are not against our landowner either - we're just stuck. We'll give our consent once a developer is finalised and introduced to us," he added.

Meanwhile, residents of Narayan Ashram Building No 7 have already agreed to redevelopment. Their landowner has signed a joint venture with Bhagwati Developers. "We've completed all the necessary paperwork and submitted our proposal to MHADA," said Kulin Vohra, proprietor of Bhagwati Developers. "We hope Building No 6 joins in too. Redeveloping a single building attached to others is difficult in a cramped area like Ganesh Gully. Joint redevelopment will benefit everyone."

Why some are upset?

While all residents of Building No 6 appear willing to proceed with redevelopment, trust issues with the landowner have stalled the process. "There's been a lot of back and forth from the landowner. We don't understand the delay - when both residents and a developer are ready, what's the holdup?" asked one resident. "The process can move ahead smoothly under Section 79(A) of the MHADA Act. But because of these delays, we're now considering invoking 79(B) to bypass the owner. The only problem is, many tenants are scared they'll be targeted if they take that step."

Exterior view of Narayan Ashram Buildings No 6 and 7, both declared dilapidated by MHADA. Pics/Shadab Khan

Another resident added, "Talks have been going on for three to four years. Frustrated, we recently renovated our house. And now, if they're asking us to vacate immediately, that money's wasted." When questioned, the owner of Building No 6, Prasad Gavankar, said, "Matters are under development. More details will be shared when there's progress."

Understanding MHADA Act

Section 79(A) mandates compulsory redevelopment for cessed buildings declared dangerous by MHADA or its repair board. Once a notice is issued, property owners have three months to act. If they don't, occupants have six additional months to propose redevelopment. Section 79(B) allows tenants to submit a redevelopment proposal themselves if the owner fails to act within the given timeframe.

Both Narayan Ashram buildings are among the 13,800 buildings MHADA has identified for redevelopment in the city. Meanwhile, 13 other buildings along the same lane are facing similar issues. "The BMC and MHADA are not on the same page," said Pagadi Association chairperson Vinita Rane. "All 15 buildings stand on BMC-owned land leased to landowners, but were constructed by MHADA. MHADA hasn't coordinated with BMC, so issues like collapsing walls are neglected in the blame game."

Rane added, "When we asked MHADA officials to inspect the tilted wall, they seemed clueless. They didn't even know how to implement 79(A). The miscommunication and lack of knowledge among authorities are putting residents under tremendous stress." Despite multiple calls from mid-day, MHADA officials declined to comment.