November 17: Four walls with a roof overhead do not make a home. Ask Mahesh A Shetye who waged a 12 long years' battle to feel a secure resident.

In his fight against the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), Shetye along with 18 co-residents, secured a landmark ruling recommending immediate rectification of the shoddy civil works in the Shiv Chaya Co-operative Housing Society in Dahisar.

The story began with the housing board announcing a scheme for the construction of flats for middle and high income groups in October 1982.

During the allotments of flats in Dahisar in 1984, the residents noticed serious defects in the construction, some glaring ones like missing street lights, substandard civil works, leaking drainage lines and peeling plaster.The allottees, led by Shetye, complained to the chief officer and other site engineers. Dissatisfied with the response, Shetye sent a legal notice to the board. A private architect was appointed to examine the premises. In 1985, they moved the Bombay High Court which ordered arbitration by an engineering expert.

``The case is significant for the sole reason that residents have won a legal battle against a giant. And the examiner is no less an official than a government employee. We hope that the report will jolt the MHADA and they will start the repairs after a 12-year wait,'' Shetye told Express Newsline.An architect by profession, Shetye recounts the travails of taking on a monopolistic mass-housing giant. ``When we took the possession, we did not know how to cope with the faulty flushing tanks, seeping waste water and broken entrances. It was impossible to feel at home. But I had decided to thrash out the matter, although it meant a major investment in time, money and energy. I hope our efforts will result in some corrective action by MHADA.''

While complaints against MHADA's poor quality construction are not new, for the first time an arbitrator, a government official appointed as per court orders, probed into residents' complaints and the officer has gone on record against the housing board for lack of basic provisions in the 20-odd flats.The arbitrator, superintending engineer A J Jagtap, has minced no words in pinpointing the defects and lack of repairs in the building. He has categorically observed, ``Maharshtra Housing and Development Authority had agreed to carry out repairs if the residents withdrew the writ petition and also did not go in for arbitration. This is not a correct stand. They ought to have carried out the rectification unconditionally.''

The inquiry report indeed gives a clear account of the defects in the building. It touches all possible points of dispute, ranging from the provision of dust bins to installation of independent water meters.

Jagtap has also recommended replacement of decayed wood and reimbursement of expenses incurred by the residents who have already taken the initiative to carry out essential repairs.

More interestingly, constitutional provisions of MHADA provide for such arbitration; and therefore Jagtap's findings are binding on the board. It is unlikely that MHADA will appeal against the arbitration instituted by itself.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.