Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn’s team has issued a clarification after reports emerged that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had demolished portions of a property linked to him in Mumbai’s Juhu area. The actor’s representatives stated that the premises are not his personal residence but a separate property that has been rented out.
The clarification came after reports of civic action against alleged unauthorised construction at the property. The team also said it had approached the civic body for the necessary permissions and had carried out the changes and modifications required under applicable municipal rules.
Ajay Devgn’s Team Issues Official Statement
Responding to the reports, the actor’s representatives sought to correct the impression that his family home had been affected by the demolition. They explained that the property in question is a separate premises that has been given on rent.
The statement said the team had applied to the BMC for the requisite permissions relating to one of its properties. It also maintained that the necessary alterations and modifications requested by the civic authorities had been completed.
The clarification was intended to distinguish the property involved in the civic action from the actor’s residence. Reports about the demolition had prompted questions about whether the building was the home associated with Devgn and his family.
Why Did the BMC Take Action?
The civic action reportedly concerned construction work that officials considered unauthorised. According to reports, the BMC’s K/West ward issued a notice on September 10, 2026, under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
The notice directed the owner or occupier to stop the work and submit the required permissions and supporting documents. The alleged work included internal alterations, partition walls, window changes and other modifications that reportedly lacked the necessary approvals.
The municipal authorities subsequently proceeded with the partial demolition after the owners’ response was rejected. According to reports, the civic body said the submitted response did not establish that the work had received the required authorisation.
The action highlights the importance of obtaining municipal approval before carrying out construction or structural alterations. Property owners and occupants are required to follow applicable building regulations, even when the work involves an existing premises rather than a newly constructed building.
Property Linked to Ajay Devgn and His Family
The property in Juhu has been reported to be owned by Ajay Devgn and his mother, Veena Devgn. Its association with the actor led to widespread attention after news of the demolition emerged.
However, the actor’s team has stressed that the premises are separate from his residence and have been rented out. This distinction is central to the clarification, as initial reports created the impression that the civic action had affected his personal home.
The team also maintained that it was complying with the applicable BMC rules, regulations and guidelines. The municipal action and the representatives’ response reflect different aspects of the matter: the civic body’s concerns about construction permissions and the team’s statement about the property’s status and corrective work.
What Happens Next?
The episode has brought renewed attention to municipal enforcement and the requirements governing property renovations in Mumbai. The BMC can take action when construction is found to be in violation of applicable rules, while owners can submit documents and seek the permissions required for their projects.
For Ajay Devgn, the immediate clarification addresses the confusion surrounding the property’s identity and its connection to his personal residence. His team has stated that the premises are rented out and that the modifications required by the civic body have been carried out.
The matter also serves as a reminder that reports involving celebrity-owned properties need to distinguish between ownership, occupancy and the specific premises affected by civic action. In this case, the actor’s representatives have made clear that the property involved is not his residence.
