Lansdowne Building in Mysore takes 4 lives

Last Saturday at least four people lost their life in Mysore when a part of 120 years old Lansdowne building collapsed. This building has been a major commercial center right from 1892. All four of them who lost their lives were in the ground floor. Two of them were the brothers who were running the DTP center. Annapoorna, an employee in the DTP center also lost her life. She had recently completed her post graduate degree in political science and also won couple of gold medals. The other one who lost his life was a customer.

The lives of these four people could have been saved if some common sense were used among those who are doing business in the heritage building and also the government agencies who collected rentals who are actually responsible for the maintenance of this crowning glory of Mysore city.

This 200m long and 20m wide structure which is located near the city bus stand was in a controversy from last 15 years. There was a demand for renovation and also for demolition when a similar incident happened with the Vani Vilas Market. There were also plans to demolish the entire structure and rebuild it in the same way as it was before.

However, when the concerned authorities initiated measures to evict the shop owners with the intention to renovate the building, the tenants approached the court and succeeded in getting the eviction order stayed.

I would suggest that the people who were responsible for not letting the concerned authorities to renovate this monument be held responsible for the death of these four people. They should be punished with fine and jail terms. Also steps should be taken to punish those authorities who though that this structure will withstand for another century.

A shop owner there stated that the roof which collapsed had developed a small hole from where the rain waters were gushing out for two days. When he informed the concerned officials about the leakage, he was told that there was a plan for renovation and it is in the final stage. The official could have judged the situation or at least cautioned the occupants.

Another shop owner opined that the tenants did not wanted this building to be demolished and/or renovated because of the fear of losing the shops to the new traders. It was this fear that made them to approach the court and get the stay order. I really don’t understand why the court would approve this. Was there no body to make the court understand that this building is more than a century old and may collapse one day?