Builders, trustees using dirty tricks to evict tenants

Incidentally, CPI secretary general, A B Bardhan, is one of the members of the trust. He too favours the construction of the new memorial complex and supports Buche and the builders. D S Buche, admitted to the The Indian Express that Bardhan is also trying to prevail upon the company management. In this game of one-up-manship between, the builder, managing trustee and those opposing the construction, the first casualty’ seems to be a restaurant owner. Probably unaware of the consequences that await him, the restaurant owner has agreed to shift his shop from the backyards of Parwana Bhawan to its front yard. The new canteen is coming up perilously close to a petrol pump which is in violation of all safety norms. However, the builder, M R Tarkunde, says that being a temporary construction, it will cause no hazard to the the adjoining petrol pump.

The Madras Rubber Factory (MRF), another tenant has also been issued notice to shift, but took the matter to court and obtained a stay order.

The Parwana Bhawan property was bought in 1975 from E C Eduljee by various bank unions under the aegis of Eastern Maharashtra Bank Employees Association (EMBEA) with the idea of constructing a memorial to Comrade H L Parwana. The rift among the members of the trust first came to the fore in 1995 when the trust decided to construct a shopping complex in place of the existing property, amidst opposition from some trust members. The builders began the construction work and one of the offices to be demolished first was that of EMBEA.

According to N K Swami, who had opposed the deal by Buche with Tarkunde, the construction activities being carried out at present are illegal. The builders have not yet received sanctions to go ahead with the construction work, he states.

D S Buche, the managing trustee, when contacted by The Indian Express, said there is no stay whatsoever at present. The status quo obtained by the MRF continues and the builders have not touched the building.

Tarkunde, of Khare and Tarkunde, alleged that Swami was one of the original signatories to the trust’s agreement with Khare and Tarkunde. Tarkunde said Swami had approached the contractors for money and a sub-contract for his son. When his requests were turned down and when his attempts to become the managing trustee bore no fruit he started giving mischievous’articles to the press, Tarkunde said.

Meanwhile, Tarkunde is determined to go ahead with the construction as he claims the property is not under dispute.