A fireside chat featuring Rtn. Ishraq Contractor, Rtn. Vivek Kothari, and Mr. Dhaval Vussonji, moderated by Rtn. Pranay Vakil, on Redevelopment Madness in Mumbai
Rtn. Pranay Vakil: I’m sure all of you are living in a place that is either being developed, or the place to the right of you is being developed, or the place to the left of you is being developed, or some job nearby is under development. In any case, everybody knows about Dharavi being redeveloped, right? So, everything is under redevelopment, and there is going to be this madness.
We have three people here who are all experts, each with 30 years of experience. Starting with you, Rtn. Vivek Kothari, what is this madness? Why is all of this happening in Bombay? If you’re on the Coastal Road and look to your right, almost every building you see is either redeveloped, in the process of being redeveloped, or something similar. So, what is this madness?
Rtn. Vivek Kothari: I would say this is the COVID effect. What we experienced during COVID highlighted the need for space. People who had space managed much better. But older buildings without balconies or much open space felt very restricted. With the introduction of new government schemes, such as those under DCPR 2034 (Regulation 33 for redevelopment of dilapidated or tenanted buildings), redevelopment has become more feasible. It’s now more viable for developers to come in and make it work for themselves and the tenants.
Everyone wants to upgrade, especially with enhanced infrastructure like Coastal Road and Metro projects making accessibility better. Earlier, projects that weren’t viable due to ingress, egress, or road width issues are now feasible under schemes like 33.9 for cluster redevelopment. This creates a win-win situation for all stakeholders, including tenants. However, there are challenges, such as high premiums and increased construction costs. Yet, it remains viable for developers, stakeholders, and tenants alike.
But what problems do you face with the government or the tenants, and how do you resolve them?
Rtn. Vivek: Tenants need to take a leap of faith. Everything beautiful requires time and patience. Developers are creators who put thought into product design, elevation, and layout, creating fantastic developments. However, on-ground reality involves coordination issues between government agencies, which can delay projects. No developer wants unnecessary delays, but miscoordination between agencies such as MHADA and CIDCO can complicate matters.
What Bombay truly needed was proper urban planning, a master plan, which didn’t happen over the years. Development has been piecemeal. Still, developers have taken many initiatives to deliver world-class projects despite these limitations.
With so much supply coming in — I believe that in the island city alone, there are 6,000 buildings under redevelopment and in the extended suburbs, there are about 13,000–14,000 buildings undergoing redevelopment — not all of them will be re-occupied by their current residents. What is the impact this surplus stock will have on prices over the next three to five years?
Rtn. Vivek: Take Versova as an example. It was subdued for a while, but with the Coastal Road and new infrastructure, areas that haven’t performed well due to poor connectivity will see an upward trend. The Golden Triangle, traditionally seen in South Bombay around Breach Candy, might shift towards other locations with better ingress and egress.
What impact will this have on infrastructure? For example, if you’re driving on the Eastern Freeway to Chembur, you pass areas with densities of 28,000 people per square kilometre — the third-highest in the world — what will this mean for roads and infrastructure?
Rtn. Vivek: With developments like the Coastal Road, existing road networks need to expand to double or triple lanes in some cases. Bombay has always lacked a master plan and is now catching up. Infrastructure bottlenecks need urgent resolution, and there must be a greater emphasis on improving them.
Dhaval, there are several types of redevelopment, such as slum redevelopment and tenant redevelopment. Many of these cases involve no clear title because the occupants are encroachers. If 500 sq. ft. is given to them, does that constitute a title? How do you address this?
Mr. Dhaval Vussonji: In slum redevelopment schemes, which are public welfare projects, the SRA issues leases to slum dwellers and the free-sale component as well. These leases, issued by the Slum Redevelopment Authority, provide title, even though the land is government-owned.
But would this be recognised in international courts, given that the title arises through the operation of law rather than a traditional flow of title?
Mr. Dhaval: Yes, since the land is government-owned, the title flows from the government to the lessee.
Rtn. Vivek, during redevelopment, tenants often receive rent during the interim period. Is this payment treated as capital gains or revenue?
Rtn. Vivek: These rents are typically revenue receipts. However, recent income tax rulings offer some relief, exempting such rents or transit accommodation payments from tax in certain cases.
Rtn. Ishraq Contractor, what about cases where someone has two flats, resides in one, and pockets rent for the other? How would this be treated for tax purposes?
Rtn. Ishraq Contractor: If rent is received as compensation or hardship allowance, it may be treated as a capital receipt and not taxed. However, if it is excess income, it could be taxable under “income from other sources.” A recent Bombay High Court ruling deemed such payments as non-taxable capital receipts, but this remains subject to interpretation.
So, you say it could be. I mean, there is uncertainty about that, and more cases will surface over time.
Rtn. Ishraq: I would consider it as an excess amount. See, today, people often engage in innovative tax planning. They might create a situation claiming hardship, but in documentation and substance, what is it? Is it genuinely hardship, or are they simply receiving excess rent to avoid tax? It all depends on the property in question, the rental being received, and how it is structured. If you want to play it safe, you should declare it as income from other sources.
Right, but you know you’re not going to draft a separate agreement for each tenant. Let’s assume there’s a building with 25 occupants, right? The agreement will be the same for all 25. So, the tax treatment should also be the same for all 25, shouldn’t it? How would you handle this, Rtn. Vivek? Would you make a separate agreement for all 25, or would it be the same one?
Rtn. Vivek: Maintaining uniformity is extremely critical because if one member classifies it as income from other sources while another takes a different approach, it could create problems. However, the tax system is not unified. Different tax officers might take different positions as information is not consistently shared between them. For instance, with faceless assessments, you may not even know where your assessment is being handled.
This lack of uniformity could lead to members being taxed differently. Something similar happened in the Reserve Bank of India case regarding employees’ voluntary retirement benefits, where differing positions created confusion. To maintain consistency, it is important that everyone adopts the same stance.
Do you think the law will evolve over time? With so many redevelopments happening, numerous issues will arise. Over time, some clarity may emerge, but until then, we are essentially groping in the dark.
Mr. Dhaval: You’re absolutely right. As Rtn. Ishraq said, I would take the safer approach because circumstances differ for each tenant. Some might have a second home, others might incur actual hardship, and some might only claim hardship. The Income Tax department is unlikely to provide a one-size-fits-all formula unless they decide to exempt these cases entirely. Redevelopment is significant in Bombay and, increasingly, in cities like Pune, but it’s not a nationwide priority. It’s unlikely they will amend the Income Tax Act for just a small subset of people.
This will likely remain a matter of interpretation and evolve over time.
Now, regarding situations where someone receives something from nothing: for example, an encroacher in Dharavi receives a 500 sq. ft. flat and then sells it, what are the capital gains implications? Let’s consider three scenarios:
- An encroacher who becomes the owner by law and then sells their property.
- A protected tenant who surrenders their tenancy and receives ownership of accommodation in return.
- A society undergoing redevelopment where the developer offers incremental space, such as turning 2,000 sq. ft. into 2,600 sq. ft. What are the capital gains implications for that additional 600 sq. ft.?
Rtn. Ishraq: Addressing the first scenario, an encroacher lacks any legal title to the property initially. When they receive premises, the fair market value of that property at the time of transfer would be treated as income from other sources, not as capital gains, because they had no prior rights to the property.
For the second scenario involving a tenant, property rights are considered a bundle of rights. A statutory tenant possesses certain rights to the property. When they receive newly constructed premises in exchange for their original tenancy, this would be treated as capital gains. If they qualify under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, they may receive tax exemptions up to a limit of ₹10 crore. If they sell the property later, they must hold it for at least two years to classify it as a long-term capital gain.
Finally, in the third scenario of redevelopment with additional space, the incremental space would be valued at its fair market value. This becomes the consideration for the additional area. The cost of construction for the original area and the fair value of the additional area would form the basis for calculating capital gains. Other expenses incurred by the builder, such as TDR (Transferable Development Rights) or FSI (Floor Space Index), which are proportionate to the owner’s share, would also be included in the cost calculation. Capital gains would be computed based on these figures.
Are you saying that each occupant should really keep track of the cost of construction? That is something they will never share. Would you share?
Rtn. Vivek: No, I mean, I agree with him. A lot of the redevelopment happening now involves the old transfers being regarded as a surrender of the old rights, whether it’s tenancy or an old flat. It’s treated like the sale of the old flat, and that’s how the documents are being drafted. The new premises you receive are seen as though you are acquiring a new flat. Very simply, the difference between the two is what you are paying tax on, or it is being exempt under Section 54F.
I don’t think there have been many issues with redevelopment in general. You’re not seeing redevelopment of ₹100 crore flats where problems might arise.
I’m sure there are tax-related issues for the developer’s perspective as well, since you’re not purchasing the land. You’re only agreeing to redevelop something that belongs to someone else and covering construction, rent, and other expenses. How do you treat this in income tax from your perspective?
Mr. Dhaval: Over the years, we’ve mostly been buying land. So redevelopment, per se, is relatively new for us because land availability has decreased. Open plots are no longer available, so there will likely be more development agreements. Rtn. Ishraq might be better placed to comment on this, as we haven’t dealt much with rental-related developments. We’ve primarily focused on purchasing open plots.
Rtn. Ishraq: Rtn. Vivek would pay close to 30% of the land value as a premium, so effectively, he is almost purchasing the land.
Yes, but isn’t the premium normally paid by the landowners for redevelopment?
Rtn. Ishraq: The developer pays the premium.
…and he secures the title by paying the premium to the principal corporation and through the development agreement with the society. That becomes his cost.
Rtn. Ishraq: Yes, including transit, hardship allowances, and the corpus, there will be significant expenses just to acquire the land.
So, something that is a capital expenditure for him becomes a revenue receipt for someone else?
Rtn. Ishraq: Yes. However, unless the developer is constructing a commercial building for leasing, he will likely treat all these expenses as work in progress.
One difficult question for you, Rtn. Vivek: You typically guarantee rent for a period of, say, three years. What happens if the project extends beyond three years? Do you continue paying rent? What happens to the person who vacated their property and handed it over?
Rtn. Vivek: This would be covered in the development agreement, and we would escalate the rent after three years.
So, what would the development agreement state?
Rtn. Vivek: It would usually include either a bank guarantee for an extended period of rent or a provision where a portion of the area is reserved, which cannot be sold until the occupation certificate is obtained. This allows members to dip into those reserves to cover any expenses.
But how have you handled situations where the project overshot the three-year period? Did you pay the rent for the extended period?
Rtn. Vivek: We haven’t undertaken any projects yet where we were responsible for paying rent. We have focused on purchasing land. I think we would definitely consult Mr. Dhaval Vussonji and structure it accordingly.
Mr. Dhaval: No, but they will have to pay the rent. There is no option; they will pay the rent.
Okay. Again, from the tax point of view, do we have to add to what is said on that — the tax implications of overshooting the three-year period?
Rtn. Ishraq: See, earlier, you had asked about whether you would enter into an agreement with everybody. Now, remember one thing: in the case of society redevelopment, there is an agreement called a Development Agreement that is entered into with the society. But with each member, there is also a separate agreement known as the PAAA, or Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement.
Therefore, it is clearly bifurcated what is happening, and it is important to ensure that when the transfer takes place, one understands what is being transferred. If it is merely a development right being transferred, the tax implications can be different. If it is the property being transferred, the tax implications will differ.
The timing of the transfer, how it is executed — these are all critical issues. If you want me to elaborate, I will need some time to explain, but I can take you through it. I’ll try to summarise in three minutes.
Basically, what happens is this: what is a builder-developer acquiring? The developer is obtaining the balance development rights, for which he will enhance those rights by paying additional FSI premiums. The society may also have unutilised plot FSI, fungible FSI, or even TDR loading.
What do you mean by zero?
Rtn. Ishraq: Zero means there is no cost attached to it unless the member is compensated for his flat. But if the member is not compensated for his flat, then no cost is attached to these rights the developer has utilised in the building.
In income tax terms, when there is no cost, the entire capital gains mechanism used to fail. To address this, amendments were introduced where the cost of any other benefit is treated as nil. “Nil” means zero, so the capital gains mechanism does not fail, and you are liable to tax on the difference between your consideration and zero cost.
Now, this raises several issues:
- Who is liable to pay the tax?
Decisions have held that the society merely acts on behalf of its members. The benefit accrues to the members, so the society cannot be taxed under the concept of mutuality. Though the society legally owns the land, the economic ownership belongs to the members. - In which year does tax liability arise?
There are decisions that state if the members have paid capital gains tax, the society cannot be taxed again. - What is being taxed?
Are you taxing the property or the development rights? The nature of what is transferred affects the tax implications.
Now, when is the transfer deemed to occur? Earlier, a Bombay High Court decision stated that transfer arises the moment the development agreement is signed, granting the developer a licence. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that transfer only arises when possession and control are handed over.
Recently, decisions have further clarified that de facto possession by the developer does not constitute a transfer. Transfer occurs only when the new property is handed over to the member. Demolition alone does not give the developer rights.
However, if a developer demolishes the premises, it can be argued that transfer has occurred, as the developer gains a benefit. This is why it is critical to execute the PAAA only after the developer has obtained all permissions. Transfer then occurs when the PAAA is signed, and the benefits of Sections 54 or 54F can be claimed if construction is completed within three years.
With RERA, it is uncertain whether this timeframe is achievable, but delays by the developer should not disqualify the member from claiming benefits.
To address these complexities, the income tax department introduced Section 45-5A to clarify taxability and determine the liable party. However, this section has created further confusion. For instance, under this section, benefits under Sections 54 and 54F may not apply because these benefits are available only to individuals or HUFs, not societies.
Additionally, under Section 45-5A, while the transfer occurs, the capital gains tax liability is deferred until the completion certificate is issued. This allows members to delay tax payments until the project is completed, but the tax department may argue that since members have not declared tax, the society should be taxed from the start.
Our advice remains: avoid relying on Section 45-5A. Stick to the tried-and-tested methods under the old rules. These have been followed successfully and offer greater clarity.
So, this is the overview of the capital gains implications if completed within three minutes.
You confused the hell out of everybody, but that’s ok.
Mr. Dhaval: No, no, I won’t add to the confusion because one thing I have learnt is that income tax needs to have no logic. If they decide to tax you, they are going to tax you. So, I think… there is logic in law.
Now, whatever you said, I just have one question. Would the treatment be different for a cooperative society vis-à-vis a condominium, or is it the same? Because in a condominium, the ownership structure is different from that of a cooperative society.
Mr. Dhaval: No, your question is absolutely spot on. But thankfully, as Rtn. Ishraq said, the way the income tax department is looking at it is that the individual members are receiving the benefits. So, whether you did it with a condominium or a society, they are taxing you for that.
No, I’m referring to… he was saying that you can’t tax the people and the society both. Yes. But in a condominium, the ownership is just one. It’s just one. So there is no confusion.
This is no confusion — it makes it easy.
The concept of mutuality doesn’t exist, but what we are all saying is that if one more floor was added to the CK Naidu Hall, technically all members of the CCI should be taxed for additional FSI consumption. So will they be? I think not. But if they are not, then none of the redevelopment should be.
Vivek, tell us about the whole process. I mean, how does the process start? Somebody comes to you and says, “This society needs redevelopment,” or, “They want to redevelop.” Where do you start, and where do you go from there? What are the stages involved? What is the time involved from start to finish? And what are the hurdles you have to cross?
Rtn. Vivek: So, basically, we’ll be working on the section that makes the proposal viable. A lot of people are going for 33(11), which is the SRA scheme right now, or 33(20B). These give us the FSI calculation according to the architect’s work and determine how much additional FSI will be given to the society members.
I think people would be more interested in 33(7B), the society redevelopment.
Rtn. Vivek: But I think 33(20B) is also making redevelopment more viable because earlier, under 33(11), people were tagged for development happening in an SRA scheme. They were getting much more FSI, including the members. But now, under 33(20B), the MC has clipped some of the concessions given in 33(11). So, 33(20B) is a much more viable development model for societies.
We work on the numbers — how much FSI a developer gets for free sale. Based on this, the developer works out the numbers for society members. For example, you could get a 40% area increase, 50%, or even 60%. Someone recently offered a 60% increase because the location allows them to secure much better value. This varies across societies, locations, and factors such as the corpus and the rentals.
The procedure is that the developer will put up a proposal for development based on the negotiations with the society members about the area and the corpus. That’s the way forward for redevelopment.
The time period from start to finish is what I think people will be interested in. The first time you meet the society, they call you for a meeting on a Sunday morning over a beer. You take it forward to the point where you shake hands and agree to redevelop. Then, there is an eight-month period spent seeking permissions.
Rtn. Vivek: The actual construction begins when people move out. From the discussion stage to the draft stage, it takes about a year. Developers usually claim redevelopment takes three or four years, but it is better to be truthful — it typically takes five years.
Guys, please note: the rent is only for three years, but the development takes five years. I want you to note that.
Rtn. Vivek: No, but it will be factored in accordingly. The approval process itself takes approximately a year, so you can estimate a six-year period for completion — if everyone is on board with a similar thought process.
So, I mean, who are the “sticky” people who don’t agree, and who are the “easy” ones? I’m sure some people must be saying, “I want a little more area compared to everybody else.” How do you handle that?
Rtn. Vivek: So, right now, as I just mentioned, we have been buying open plots. But in one of the developments happening in South Bombay, nothing has moved in two years because the developer insists on obtaining 100% permissions from all members. He doesn’t want the development to stall because of one member, for whatever reason — whether it’s difficulty in moving out or otherwise.
The law says 51%, although to be on the safe side, Rtn. Vivek would say he wants 100% of people to agree before taking on the project.
Rtn. Vivek: That’s why many redevelopment projects have not moved ahead on our South Bombay side. In the suburbs, it’s happening because people are much more conducive to it, but here, I would like to go with 100% approvals.
So, SoBo people are not flexible?
Rtn. Vivek: No, I mean a developer would not like to take a chance. So the developer has to be flexible if the people are not flexible. I mean, a developer would not take a chance here because we have seen the iterations and the issues that arise. If you delay a project by five years, there’s no money left on the table.
- But to start with, let me tell you, there is a culprit. And what is that culprit? The culprit is that all of us are staying in buildings from when the FSI was 1.3. Now, the FSI could be 3, 4, 4.2, or 4.5, depending on how old the building is — whether it is prior to 1969, and whether something was included or not.
I mean, all of those things can be fine-tuned. Assume that it’s even 3.5 compared to 1.33. It always makes sense for the developer to get in without paying for land, develop it, and then sell the premises to encash the money. So I think that is the game everybody’s playing. But remember, your building has to be more than 30 years old. You cannot redevelop buildings that are less than 30 years of age.
So, new buildings can’t go. And that is a very invidious situation because, 30 years ago, the FSI was still 1.3, right? The FSI changed only about four or five years ago when the new development regulations came into effect. So that 25-year balance period, where things were developed with 1.33 FSI, cannot avail of the new FSI. And that is where the dilemma lies.
Rtn. Vivek: Absolutely.
One side issue, Mr. Dhaval, for you: a lot of these lands are on lease from the collector. What is the status? Is there a reversion of rights? Are people trying to convert these into ownership? Is the collector agreeing to that? What kind of premium does he charge? You might want to talk about all of that.
Mr. Dhaval: So, very briefly, societies are able to convert. They are not really converting it into freehold; they are taking it from a Class 2 lease to a Class 1 lease. Between 5% and 10% of the market value is charged for that conversion. It was 5% in some cases, but that scheme is now pending re-approval with the new government.
Does this mean that anyone here living in a flat on a leased plot can convert it to freehold by paying 5% or 10% of the market value?
Mr. Dhaval: No, they aren’t converting it to freehold. It’s just from a Class 2 lease to a Class 1 lease. So, it’s improving the lease’s status but not converting it. Again, in redevelopment, the collector gives permissions. They pay premiums, and sometimes it’s cheaper to pay a premium for the conversion to Class 1 rather than leaving it as Class 2 for redevelopment. I think the developer will work out the best math and convert it prior to redevelopment.
But mind you, if you are staying in a building on collector lease land and want to sell the flat in that building, you will need the collector’s permission. He will officially charge a percentage of the land value to transfer the flat. You want to talk about that?
Mr. Dhaval: Yes, it’s a premium between 1% for old flats and 3% for newer ones. That’s the premium charged. It used to be ₹200 for residential premises, but it’s now increased to 3%.
The process can take up to three months, and it could even take six months during election periods. When elections are underway, officials may not be available in the collector’s office, causing delays.
Rtn. Ishraq: That’s the practical aspect. They delay matters, and especially where I stay at Corporate, most lands are leasehold. There’s some talk with the lease authorities about converting them, but they’re asking for a ridiculous percentage of the land value, so it’s a non-starter.
This scheme started with the collector claiming they would convert these to freehold. For the longest time, government circulars also touted this as a freehold conversion scheme. But in practice, it’s just a better lease, not a freehold. And yes, that’s why I understand why you call it ridiculous — it’s just a status change, not ownership.
Thank you.
To sum up, if we have succeeded in confusing you, we have achieved our purpose, right? There are so many uncertainties: when redevelopment will happen, when you’ll get possession, whether you’ll get rent or not. One by one, if you cross these uncertainties, ultimately, what you get will have better value, right?
And Rtn. Vivek very conveniently avoided the answer about what will happen to prices.
Rtn. Vivek: According to me, there’s so much supply coming to the market that I doubt prices will go up. On the contrary, if all the supply arrives at the same time, it would be a disaster. But as it’s spread over three to five years, prices will stabilise. They may not decrease, but they won’t rise significantly either — that’s my opinion.
Mr. Dhaval: I have a point. I don’t think many redevelopments are moving ahead because rentals have gone up now. People looking to shift out of their existing flats aren’t finding good apartments due to the sharp increase in rentals.
Why have the rentals gone up? They’ve gone up because developers are providing rentals for redevelopment. There are so many people in the market looking for rental accommodation that rents, which used to be 2% of capital value, have become 3% to 3.5% of capital value.
That’s correct.
- To sum up, this is a situation in flux. It’s evolving. The law is evolving, the process is evolving, and we are right in the middle of it. Should you or should you not go for redevelopment? It depends on the developer you choose. A dependable developer will sort out all the problems, and you’ll get your flat. But if you choose a less-than-desirable developer, you could be stuck forever — that’s my opinion.
ROTARIANS ASK
Can you quickly throw some light on inclusive housing? I believe some housing has to be given back to the government. Moving that out costs much more than current estimates. Can you elaborate legally and otherwise?
That’s for, I think, larger layouts — maybe 4,000 sq. m. and above. So, basically, in South Mumbai.
Yes, or you have to give to MHADA. You can give MHADA the required allocation in the same ward, which then allows you to free up your inventory in the existing project. It all depends on the surplus area calculation — how much you have to allocate to MHADA.
Are the costs relatively high?
No, not really. You have to give it in the same ward. The working is calculated by the architect, who determines how much surplus area you’re going to generate from a 33/7 project. Once you allocate that area within the same ward, the developer gains free inventory. So, it all depends on the location and the amount of area to be allocated.
Thanks for the confusion, but nobody spoke about self-redevelopment. This is a significant consideration. Why should someone go to a developer? Why should someone not? Could you address the pros and cons?
Rtn. Vivek: Self-redevelopment has not gained traction because of the developer’s vision. Not everyone can envision the value a developer creates or the price discovery they enable. This is where a developer plays a critical role as both a creator and enabler, ensuring price discovery.
Self-redevelopment hasn’t progressed much because too many decision-makers within a society can complicate matters. That is likely the main reason it hasn’t taken off.
Pranay: Sir, it’s a very specialised job, let me tell you. It varies not just from city to city but even within the same state. The regulations are different, and understanding all of that is incredibly challenging. For smaller buildings, it might be manageable, but for larger buildings, you must consult a specialist. Engage all three: a developer, an architect, and a legal advisor.
Mr. Dhaval: I’ll sum it up by saying Rtn. Vivek is being very kind, but you won’t manage the BMC like he does, so self-redevelopment might not be feasible for most societies.
What about pollution in the city? How do we survive that?
The BMC has introduced several measures, including guidelines on covering construction sites and managing pollution. However, pollution isn’t just from construction. It’s also due to industries, bakeries, and seasonal factors. During winter, for instance, wind stagnation exacerbates the issue. That said, the BMC is taking steps to mitigate pollution.
Before I hand over, I want to clarify one basic question for all of us, many societies say, “I know this builder, I know that developer.” But what groundwork should we do before bringing someone in?
Mr. Dhaval: You should review how many projects the builder has developed and delivered in the past.
For your own society, what groundwork should you do?
When calling for bids, you must ensure you conduct public bidding and carefully review the track record of the builders. Focus on how many of their projects have been successfully delivered.
Pranay: Start by engaging an architect. Let the architect prepare the groundwork. Only after that should you approach a developer or other stakeholders. The architect will help you understand the basics and guide you accordingly.