Life insurance but no assurance: LIC tenants cry foul
LIC has blocked the redevelopment of the 137-year-old Angrewadi Chawl, putting 93 tenants at risk. Is there a way out?
MUMBAI: In a nondescript lane in Sikka Nagar at Khetwadi, near Charni Road, stands Angrewadi Chawl built 137 years ago in colonial times. Residents here say that, every so often, they whisper a prayer as jack hammers from neighbouring construction projects cause their homes to shudder, often sending utensils tumbling off their kitchen shelves. Plaster routinely falls of the ceilings, and fresh cracks surface every now and then. But that’s been happening for years.
The chawl is structurally weak, and the 82 families and 11 shopkeepers who occupy the five, ground-plus-three-storey buildings here are worried that if not redeveloped in the near term, the chawl may come crashing down.
The history of Angrewadi Chawl is rooted in the legacy of Sardar Angre, a Dewan (landlord) of the Maharaja, who originally owned the property. It was later donated to a certain Mr Biwalkar from Pune. Before the nationalisation of insurance companies, the property was mortgaged to the Commonwealth Insurance Company and, as a result, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) became the default landlord.
Ramesh Nirmal Jain, the redevelopment convener and joint secretary of the Angrewadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh, has lived here for 48 years. He says that when he first moved in, the rent was ₹150 per month. Today, he pays ₹2,445 per month for a 200-square-foot room, where six members of his family live in cramped conditions.
Residents Checkmated
Angrewadi residents made several attempts to get the chawl redeveloped by LIC, the landlord. When that did not work, they reached out to various state ministries, including the minister of state for finance and the housing minister. As a result, some headway appeared to have been made in 2023. But when the matter stalled again, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) dispatched notices to all 68 LIC-owned buildings, occupied by more than 10,000 residents, under Section 79(a) of the MHADA Act, 1976, in July 2023.
Under the provisions of this section, a recent amendment to the MHADA Act, LIC was given six months to begin the redevelopment process. When LIC ignored the directive, Jain wrote to MHADA, requesting that the next step, under Section 79(b), be invoked, allowing the tenants to take charge of the redevelopment process. After months of waiting, in April 2024, MHADA issued the notice, a developer was selected, and a redevelopment proposal was submitted to MHADA. However, LIC challenged the 79(a) notice in the Bombay High Court, effectively bringing the process to a grinding halt.
Angrewadi Chawl, categorised as ‘A’ due to its severe structural deterioration, has been repaired ten times since 1971. Yet, the buildings, being over a century old, are beyond simple repairs. There are 16,800 such dilapidated buildings in Mumbai, which fall into this category, underscoring the city’s housing crisis.
“Our building isn’t an RCC structure but is supported by load-bearing walls on both the left and right sides,” explains Jain. “Due to redevelopment projects on either side, the walls of Angrewadi have developed serious cracks, and the buildings’ continue to deteriorate. We live in constant fear of our homes collapsing. If that does happen, who will be held responsible,” he asks, voicing the concerns of all the tenants.
Shrenik Sadhani, chairperson of the Angrewadi Rajawasi Seva Sangh, is concerned for another reason. He said LIC’s name does not appear on the property card. Even though the chawl was mortaged to LIC, and the corporation’s involvement in the property was by default, LIC hadn’t cared to update its property card.
Pressured to Vacate
Sadhani said that Angrewadi is a predominantly Maharashtrian community, with many of the residents now in their 80s and 90s. Their children have moved away, leaving them with no choice but to stay here.
“LIC has allegedly placed restrictions on us, preventing us from renting or vacating the property. They’ve invoked the Public Premises Act, which blocks us from occupying or subletting the property. About 60% of us have taken our homes on lease, but even these tenants have limited rights. LIC seems to want us to vacate so that they can take over,” he said.
Angrewadi tenants feel trapped in a legal and bureaucratic maze. “We have been living here for 40-50 years and are focused on earning a living. We have little time to deal with these issues. Our leases have expired twice, and in some cases, they are no longer renewing them,” Sadhani revealed. “Our rent, which was ₹100 in the year 2000, has gone up to ₹2,000. During meetings with LIC, they’ve given us an ultimatum: either vacate or comply with their demands.”
Shrikant Pandit, a second-generation resident of Angrewadi for 35 years and secretary of the Angrewadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh, claimed that LIC is arm-twisting tenants. “We are being harassed into signing lease agreements with LIC. I used to pay ₹1,319 in rent, but over the last two years, it has skyrocketed to ₹4,700,” revealed Pandit.
He too believes it is a means to pressure tenants to vacate. “They told us that this increased rent is fixed for five years, after which it will rise by 15%. They’ve also offered us the option of an 11-month leave-and-licence agreement. Even for something as simple as painting the house, we need their permission, and if we install an airconditioner, the rent increases due to the added load on the building.”
Sadhani highlights an irony – LIC’s selective application of its slogan ‘Zindagi ke saath bhi, zindagi ke baad bhi’ (With you in life, and even after life). “If they had redeveloped this property, it would have benefited both parties—LIC would have gained space, and we would have retained our homes,” he remarked.
Lives in Limbo
The next hearing in the Angrewadi case was originally scheduled for September 3, but has now been postponed, leaving the future of the Angrewadi residents uncertain. Advocate Prerak Choudhary, representing the tenants, has underlined the importance of Section 79(a), a welfare provision introduced via an amendment in 2022. “Section 79(a) is a significant step towards the redevelopment of dilapidated buildings. LIC has challenged its constitutionality, but we believe their challenge is not sustainable.”
Choudhary expressed concern over LIC’s actions, stating that human life must be prioritised above all else. “If a mishap occurs and someone loses their life, LIC will shift the blame to MHADA, and vice versa, or even to the tenants,” he said. “Human life is of paramount importance, and we must err on the side of caution.”
Despite making repeated calls and sending an email to Meeta Khare, executive director, estates, LIC, and even emailing Aditya Gupta, executive director (communication) from LIC, Hindustan Times received no response.