Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has taken enforcement action against unapproved construction at actor Ajay Devgn's bungalow in the Juhu area of Mumbai. Civic authorities removed specific sections of the property on October 12 after remodeling activity allegedly persisted despite an official directive to halt all work.
The residential property, situated within the Kapol Co-operative Housing Society in Juhu, was previously leased to Florian Hurel Salon Private Limited. Representatives for the company had commenced interior alterations at the location, including setting up partition walls, fitting windows, and erecting Siporex block structures, purportedly without securing the mandatory municipal permits.
Municipal officials verified the enforcement action, explaining that the civic administration carried out the demolition after interior work went forward in defiance of regulatory warnings. The Building Proposal Department had not cleared the alterations being executed inside the building.
On September 10, the municipal authority served a formal directive under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The order instructed the property owner or occupant to halt activities instantly and produce valid permits and paperwork from competent departments within a 24-hour window. Because operations continued regardless of the warning, the civic body proceeded with the partial demolition on October 12.
The expansive property spans 7,802 square feet and is located on Plot S-10 along N S Road No. 11 within the JVPD Scheme. Records show it was transferred under a registered five-year leave-and-licence contract starting August 10, valued at a total of Rs 10.61 crore with a starting monthly rent of Rs 16 lakh and a five percent yearly increase.
Prior to the lease, the actor's family requested a no-objection certificate from the housing cooperative. Correspondence from July indicated that society representatives acknowledged the legal owners and confirmed no objections to leasing the estate.
Nonetheless, the housing cooperative asserted that its clearance solely permitted a standard leave-and-licence arrangement rather than an official conversion from residential to commercial use. The society also contended that its approval did not grant authorization for structural modifications or utility changes on the grounds.