Anyone who spends time around Mumbai’s redevelopment market eventually runs into the same alphabet soup: Regulation 33(7), Regulation 33(9), fungible FSI, TDR, Table 12. These all trace back to a single document, the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 for Greater Mumbai, commonly called DCPR 2034, which is the rulebook that decides how much a plot can legally be built up, and under what conditions. I get asked fairly often to explain, in plain language, which sections of DCPR actually matter for redevelopment and what each one is meant to achieve. Here is my attempt at that, with the standard caveat that DCPR 2034 is amended frequently through government notifications, so anyone using this for an actual transaction should verify the current position with an architect or the municipal corporation before relying on it.
Before getting into the redevelopment-specific provisions, it helps to understand the basic FSI framework that everything else builds on. Regulation 30 (and 30A) sets out the base or “zonal” FSI that any plot is entitled to as a matter of right, without paying anything extra: 1.33 in the Island City and 1.00 in the suburbs. On top of this base entitlement, Regulation 31 governs two further layers. Regulation 31(1) lists specific architectural features, staircases, lift lobbies, certain balconies and the like, that are either exempted from FSI computation or counted in a particular way. Regulation 31(3) introduces what is officially called Fungible Compensatory Area, and what almost everyone in the market simply calls “fungible FSI”: an additional built-up area of up to 35% over and above the permissible FSI, available on payment of a premium (roughly 50% of the locality’s Annual Schedule of Rates for residential use, and around 60% for commercial or industrial use). This fungible area is significant precisely because it is available almost universally, and it is one reason final built-up areas in Mumbai projects often look considerably larger than the “base FSI” figure alone would suggest.
Beyond base FSI and fungible area, plots can access two further layers depending on the width of the road they front: Premium FSI, purchased from the Municipal Corporation against a fee under Regulation 31(1)(iv) and related provisions, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), development potential purchased from the open market and “loaded” onto the plot. DCPR 2034’s Table 12 lays out exactly how much premium FSI and TDR a plot can access based on the width of the abutting road, in bands running from under 9 metres up to 27 metres and above. In the Island City, for instance, a plot on a road of 27 metres or wider can combine the 1.33 base FSI with up to 0.84 of premium FSI and 0.83 of TDR, taking permissible FSI to around 3.0, before even adding the 35% fungible area on top. Narrower roads unlock progressively less premium FSI and TDR, which is a large part of why road width matters so much when evaluating a plot’s redevelopment potential.
With that foundation in place, the real action for redevelopment sits in Regulation 33, an umbrella regulation with a long series of numbered and lettered sub-clauses, each addressing a different category of building or ownership situation. A few of these matter far more than the rest for anyone working in Mumbai’s redevelopment market.
Regulation 33(5) governs the redevelopment of MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority) housing schemes, the large stock of EWS, LIG, MIG, and HIG tenements built by the state housing board across the city over the decades. Under this provision, redevelopment is permitted at an FSI of up to 3.0 on the gross plot, rising to 4.0 for larger plots (over 4,000 square metres) fronting an 18-metre or wider road. Existing tenement holders are entitled to their existing area plus an additional 35%, and MHADA societies up to 4,000 square metres can also opt into a Premium Policy route with a reduced premium (25% of the normal rate, or 6.25% of the ASR-based land rate for FSI 1, whichever is higher) specifically for construction of EWS, LIG, and MIG category tenements.
Regulation 33(7), along with its associated sub-clauses 33(7)(A) and 33(7)(B), governs redevelopment of cessed buildings, a large category of old buildings in the Island City on which a repair cess was historically levied under the MHADA Act, buildings whose rents were effectively frozen decades ago under old rent control provisions and which have, as a result, been chronically under-maintained. Regulation 33(7) permits redevelopment of these buildings at an FSI of up to 3.0 on the gross plot, with existing tenants entitled to additional built-up area over their existing tenement, typically in a range of 5%, 8%, or 15% depending on the specific circumstances of the building. Regulation 33(7)(B) specifically addresses a different and increasingly important category: private cooperative housing societies (as opposed to cessed or rent-controlled buildings) that are more than 30 years old. For these societies, the regulation grants an incentive FSI of either 10 square metres of additional area per member, or 15% of the authorised built-up area, whichever the society finds more favourable, consumed within the overall permissible FSI limit for the plot. This is the provision that has, in recent years, made straightforward redevelopment of ageing private societies (the kind of building most of my own redevelopment work involves) meaningfully more attractive than it used to be.
Regulation 33(9) governs Cluster Development Schemes, sometimes called Urban Renewal Schemes, and is aimed at a different problem entirely: redeveloping not a single building but an entire cluster of buildings across a larger, contiguous area. To qualify, a scheme must cover a minimum area of 4,000 square metres in the Island City or 6,000 square metres in the suburbs and extended suburbs, and access must be from a defined arterial road. In exchange for this scale requirement, cluster schemes unlock the highest FSI available under ordinary redevelopment provisions, up to 4.0 on the gross plot area, along with taller permissible building heights (raised from 120 metres to 250 metres by a 2021 government approval, though this height benefit currently applies specifically to 33(9) schemes rather than redevelopment generally). Cluster redevelopment is genuinely powerful precisely because it lets a developer plan infrastructure, roads, open space, parking, sewage treatment, across an integrated area rather than piecemeal building by building, but it also means dealing with a much larger and more varied set of stakeholders (multiple societies, individual landowners, commercial tenants) than a single-building redevelopment ever would.
Regulation 33(10) covers Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, working alongside the separate Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, rather than replacing it. Under the current framework, a developer redeveloping eligible slum land must provide rehabilitation tenements of at least 300 square feet of usable carpet area to eligible slum dwellers, a meaningful increase from the 269 square feet norm that applied under earlier rules. As with 33(9), 33(10) unlocks generous incentive FSI in exchange for the developer taking on the considerable operational complexity of eligibility surveys, consent management, and transit accommodation that slum redevelopment inevitably involves, complexity I have written about at more length elsewhere on this site.
Regulation 33(11), together with several other numbered sub-clauses further down the list (33(13), 33(16), 33(19), and others), covers a range of more specific categories: redevelopment of buildings owned by public authorities, dilapidated and dangerous structures requiring reconstruction, and various other special situations that fall outside the main categories above. These are worth knowing exist, since an experienced architect or redevelopment consultant will usually be able to identify quickly which specific sub-clause applies to a given plot, but they are less commonly encountered in day-to-day redevelopment work compared to 33(5), 33(7), 33(9), and 33(10).
A theme that runs through all of this, and one I would genuinely encourage anyone evaluating a redevelopment opportunity to internalise, is that DCPR 2034 is not a static document. Premium rates, FSI limits, minimum plot sizes, and even height restrictions have all been revised multiple times through government resolutions and notifications since the regulations were first sanctioned, and further amendments are a near-certainty going forward given how frequently this framework has changed in recent years. A calculation done against DCPR provisions from even two or three years ago may no longer reflect what is actually available today. This is precisely why, when I work with a housing society or a landowner on a potential redevelopment, one of the very first steps is always getting a qualified architect to confirm the current, applicable regulation and FSI entitlement for that specific plot, rather than relying on a general understanding of “what DCPR allows,” however well informed that general understanding might be.
Taken together, these sections are what actually determine how much a redeveloped building in Mumbai can offer, whether that is a single ageing cooperative society under 33(7)(B), a MHADA colony under 33(5), an entire cluster of buildings under 33(9), or a slum settlement under 33(10). Understanding which provision applies to your specific situation, and roughly what it entitles you to, is one of the most useful pieces of knowledge any society member, landowner, or aspiring developer in this city can have before sitting down at the negotiating table.
