The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the landlord of Esplanade Mansion, which houses 146 tenants, to submit an estimate of the cost to conserve and restore the 153-year-old building, by February 20.
A Division Bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and B.P. Colabawalla issued the direction after experts submitted differing estimates for the work. While one expert said the restoration would cost ₹23 crore, another said it would cost ₹98 crore.
Meanwhile, the State government and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) informed the court that they were not in a position to bear the expense for the work.
Conservation architect Abha Narain Lambah said the work would require ₹98 crore when one takes into account the structural and architectural stability, and that the premises have to be habitable, which means restoring the interior of the structure and providing basic amenities like electricity.
Chetan Raikar, a structural engineer from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, submitted an estimate of ₹23 crore, but said the amount was only for restoring the structure. He said if internal expenses were to be considered, the estimate would come to ₹45-50 crore.
MHADA, meanwhile, submitted that it did not have funds to foot the restoration of the privately owned structure. The State government, despite having assured UNESCO that it will take efforts to restore the heritage structure, said it was not willing to bear the additional burden on the exchequer as this was a private building.
The Bench had earlier appointed an independent committee comprising Mr. Raikar, Ms. Lambah and conservation architect Vikas Dilawari after divergent views about the structure had come up.
The landlord and tenants had said the building was not as dilapidated as claimed by an IIT Bombay report, which had recommended the structure’s demolition. The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) had backed the landlords and tenants’ claim that the IIT Bombay report had several flaws and the building could be repaired and restored.
Another Division Bench of the HC had previously raised the query that as the structure did not belong to the State, MHADA or the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, was it possible for the government to authorise either MHADA or a planning authority to undertake repairs to a private building. “Importantly and pertinently, who will bear the cost of these repairs, assuming that it is technically possible. The difficulty being that right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is a constitutional right, nonetheless and the Article 300A (no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law) of the Constitution of India comes into play,” it had said.
The Bench had said that if the owner wished to repair, restore and preserve the structure, his right was paramount in character, and “if he has to be deprived of it by the process known to law, then, this court would have to be enlightened as to whether the State government is prepared to take these steps”.
