The BMC’s demolition of unauthorised portions of a Juhu bungalow linked to actor Ajay Devgn and his mother, Veena Devgan, is more than a celebrity property dispute. It exposes a recurring urban governance problem in Mumbai: a property can change from residential use to commercial use, be modified internally and be leased to a business, while responsibility for permissions remains divided among owners, occupants, housing societies and the municipal corporation.
According to the Indian Express report, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation began action after finding structural alterations at Kapole Cooperative Housing Society, a 7,800-square-foot bungalow jointly owned by Devgan and Veena Devgan. The property was not being used as the actor’s residence. It had been leased to Florian Hurel Salon Private Limited under a five-year agreement involving total rent of Rs 10.61 crore.
The BMC said the occupants had modified the internal premises by installing windows, partition walls and ceilings. It also stated that the work involved syporex blocks, an aerated concrete material commonly used for floor panels and partition walls. The civic authority’s position was that the work amounted to structural alteration and required permission that had not been obtained.
The sequence described by the civic officials is important. The first stop-work notice was issued on September 10. The occupants were asked to respond within 24 hours, and the BMC later maintained that the reply did not satisfy the authorities. Officials said the occupants were instructed to stop the work, but that the work continued despite the warning. The corporation then began demolition on October 12, using a hammer to remove partition walls, ceilings and other unauthorised portions. A final inspection and status check was subsequently carried out.
Assistant municipal commissioner Chakrapani Alle told the Indian Express that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act requires permission for structural alterations inside a building. The BMC’s notice warned that if construction or related work did not stop, the unauthorised portions and materials, machinery and equipment used for the work could be removed at the owner’s risk and cost without further notice.
The owners’ position, as conveyed by Devgan’s office, is different in emphasis rather than in the basic sequence of events. The office said the property was not Ajay Devgn’s residence but a separate property that had been rented out. It also said that the owners had applied to the BMC for the requisite permissions and were complying with applicable rules, regulations and guidelines. The statement added that the necessary changes, alterations and modifications required by the BMC had been carried out.
This distinction between ownership, occupation and control is central to the case. The person who owns a property may not be the person who carries out the work. A tenant or licensee may fit out premises for a commercial activity, while the housing society may issue a no-objection certificate for leasing the property. Yet municipal enforcement can still affect the property owner because the building permission and the legality of the physical changes are attached to the premises, not simply to the commercial operator.
The society’s role, as reported, was limited to issuing an NOC in July in the names of Veena Devgan and Vishal Devgan, Ajay Devgn’s legal name, for leasing out the property. The BMC said that the NOC did not contain any clause permitting structural alteration. That detail illustrates the difference between a society’s consent to a lease and municipal approval for building work. An NOC may enable a transaction within a housing society, but it does not replace statutory permission from the civic authority.
The case also shows why the conversion of residential premises for commercial use can create regulatory friction. A salon is not simply a tenant occupying an unchanged room. Its operation may require internal partitions, service areas, windows, ceilings, electrical systems, plumbing, signage and customer access arrangements. The supplied report establishes that windows and partition walls were installed, but it does not establish the full extent of the salon’s operational permissions or whether any separate licences were required. The confirmed dispute is narrower: the BMC said structural work was carried out without the necessary municipal permission.
Mumbai’s building-control system therefore operates through several overlapping layers. The municipal corporation regulates construction and alterations under the applicable municipal law. Housing societies manage internal building relationships and may issue permissions or NOCs under their own rules. Owners enter into leases or leave-and-licence agreements, while commercial occupants adapt spaces for business use. These layers are related but not interchangeable. Consent from one institution cannot automatically authorise an action controlled by another.
That institutional separation can be difficult for residents and businesses to navigate. A lease agreement may permit occupation, and a society may allow the premises to be leased, but neither necessarily confirms that a proposed alteration is lawful under municipal building regulations. The BMC’s account suggests that the occupants proceeded after a notice had already been issued, turning a permissions dispute into an enforcement action. The owners’ statement, meanwhile, indicates that an application for permissions was made and that changes required by the BMC were completed.
The financial scale of the lease adds another layer to the story. The reported five-year agreement was valued at Rs 10.61 crore, while the affected property covered 7,800 square feet. Those figures do not establish whether the commercial use itself was permissible, nor do they determine liability for the alterations. They do show that the premises had significant commercial value and that building-control decisions can have direct consequences for high-value leases, business operations and property owners.
The demolition also raises a practical question about enforcement timing. The BMC said it issued a stop-work notice, gave the occupants an opportunity to respond and subsequently found the response unsatisfactory. Officials further said that work continued despite instructions to stop. The corporation’s account presents the demolition as the next step after non-compliance. The owners’ statement indicates that the permission process and remedial compliance were underway. The supplied material does not provide the full notice, the occupants’ reply, the permission application or the final inspection report, so it cannot establish the precise legal status of every alteration after the demolition.
What the episode does establish is the importance of documenting responsibility before commercial occupation begins. In a leased property, the owner and the occupant may need to clearly define who will obtain permissions, who will submit drawings, who will bear the cost of compliance and who will restore the premises at the end of the agreement. A society’s NOC should also not be treated as a substitute for civic approval where municipal law requires one.
For the BMC, the case demonstrates the corporation’s ability to intervene after work has begun, but it also highlights the limits of enforcement that arrives only after physical changes are made. A stop-work notice can halt activity, yet demolition is costlier and more disruptive than preventing unauthorised work at the approval stage. The report does not provide data on how often similar commercial fit-outs in residential properties are inspected or how quickly permission applications are processed, so broader conclusions about enforcement performance cannot be drawn from this case alone.
For housing societies, the incident is a reminder that leasing a flat, bungalow or other premises for commercial activity can create obligations beyond recording the tenant or issuing an NOC. The society’s approval may need to be read alongside municipal permissions and the building’s sanctioned plans. For owners, leasing out a property does not necessarily remove exposure to action against unauthorised work. For occupants, business fit-outs cannot be assumed to be permissible simply because the landlord has agreed to the lease.
The larger urban question is how Mumbai manages buildings whose use changes faster than the approvals governing them. Residential properties are increasingly valuable as commercial spaces, but the regulatory system still depends on permissions tied to use, structure and building plans. The Juhu action shows what happens when those permissions are disputed after the fit-out has begun: the issue moves from a private lease arrangement into public enforcement.
The evidence currently confirms that the BMC identified and demolished portions it considered unauthorised, that officials said the work lacked municipal permission, and that the owners’ office said the property was being rented out and that compliance measures had been undertaken. What remains to be established from the complete municipal record is the status of the permission application, the final inspection findings and the precise responsibility assigned to the owners and occupants. Those documents will determine whether the episode remains a demolition action over unauthorised alterations or becomes a broader test of how Mumbai regulates commercial activity inside residential properties.
