The case began after Ajay Devgn leased the property to a salon company, which subsequently started carrying out interior alterations. The work allegedly undertaken without the necessary permissions prompted the municipal authorities to intervene.
The dispute concerns a bungalow measuring approximately 7,802 square feet at Plot S-10, NS Road No. 11, in the JVPD Scheme. The property belongs to the Devgn family.
According to the information available, the bungalow was leased to Florian Hurel Salon Private Limited on August 10, 2026, under a registered leave-and-licence agreement for a period of five years. The total value of the deal was approximately Rs 10.61 crore. The initial monthly rent was fixed at Rs 16 lakh, with a provision for a 5 per cent annual increase.
The Kapoor Cooperative Housing Society had also issued a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) on July 22, 2026, in connection with the lease. The certificate confirmed that Veena Virendra Devgn and Vishal, also known as Ajay Devgn, were the legal owners of the property and stated that the society had no objection to the bungalow being leased.
However, questions subsequently arose over the scope of the society’s NOC and whether it permitted the changes being carried out at the property.
The housing society maintained that its NOC was limited to the use of the bungalow under a leave-and-licence arrangement. According to the society, the certificate did not authorise a complete conversion of the property from residential to commercial use or permit major structural and service-related alterations.
The controversy intensified after interior work reportedly began to transform the bungalow for use as a commercial salon.
According to preliminary inspections and reports from the BMC’s Building Proposal Department, partition walls, new windows and other significant interior modifications were being undertaken inside the bungalow without valid approvals. The municipal authorities found that the work required for setting up the salon had not received the necessary civic permissions.
Unauthorised construction involving Siporex blocks was also reportedly continuing at the site. The work drew attention locally, eventually prompting the municipal corporation to intervene.
Taking action over the alleged violations, the BMC issued a formal notice on September 10, 2026, under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The notice directed the bungalow’s owner or the people occupying the premises to stop the construction immediately and submit all required approvals and documents from the relevant authorities within 24 hours.
However, the construction reportedly continued despite repeated warnings and the notice. The civic body subsequently adopted a stricter approach and visited the property on October 12, demolishing those portions of the alleged unauthorised construction that had been carried out without permission.
The action has brought the bungalow’s commercial use, the limits of the housing society’s NOC and compliance with municipal building regulations into focus. The demolition followed the BMC’s notice and its subsequent intervention over construction that allegedly proceeded without the required approvals.
About The Author
Comment List