The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has demolished what it describes as unauthorised construction at actor Ajay Devgn’s bungalow in Juhu. The property is a 7,802-square-foot bungalow in the Kapol Co-operative Housing Society (JVPD Scheme, NS Road No. 11, Plot S-10, as listed in the report).
According to BMC, walls, windows and other structural parts of the bungalow were being altered using Siporex blocks without the required approvals. The Building Proposals Department issued a stop-work notice on September 10, 2026, under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The family reportedly sought four weeks to respond. BMC says that after the deadline passed, no documents or reply were submitted and the work continued quietly. A BMC team then went to the site and demolished the construction.
The Lease Behind the Dispute
The controversy began over the bungalow’s use. According to the report, on August 10, 2026, the Devgn family leased the property to Florian Hurel Salons Private Limited for five years. The deal is reported at ₹10.61 crore, with an initial monthly rent of ₹16 lakh. There were plans for a commercial salon and spa, which Kapol Society residents consistently opposed. They said a salon in a residential area would create traffic, parking and security problems.
The Society’s Position
The society says it issued a No Objection Certificate on July 22, 2026, to Veena Virendra Devgan and Ajay (Vishal) Devgan only for leave-and-license renting, and not for commercial use or structural changes. It says it gave the family 15 days to produce legal approvals. When no valid documents were found, it complained to BMC on September 8, seeking action under Sections 43 and 52 to 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
What Is Not Known
The report does not include any statement from Ajay Devgn, his family, the salon company or BMC officials by name. It does not say whether the family disputes the claims, whether the salon lease has been cancelled, or whether further action is planned.
Why It Matters
The case shows how a dispute between a housing society and a property owner can escalate into municipal enforcement, especially where residential use is changed for commercial purposes. It also underlines that being a high-profile owner does not exempt a property from building rules. The next developments will depend on the family’s response and any legal steps.
