Shah Rukh Khan rents, Aamir Khan buys, Priyanka Chopra sells: What's driving Bollywood's real estate trends?

Time of India

a day ago

Mumbai's skyline isn't just dotted with luxury skyscrapers and sea-facing villas—it's shaped by the dreams, dilemmas, and lifestyle choices of India's biggest stars. While some celebrities are investing crores into owning a piece of the city they rule, others are choosing the flexibility—and status—of luxury rentals.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
With
temporarily leasing swanky duplexes and Aamir Khan purchasing a new flat amid redevelopment, the age-old 'Rent vs Buy' debate is heating up in Bollywood.
But what's really influencing these decisions? Is it just economics, or is image, transience, and status playing a bigger role? Here's a closer look at why some celebs are laying down permanent roots, while others are simply renting the dream.
Shah Rukh Khan rents as Mannat gets a makeover
King Khan himself is setting the tone for the conversation.
While his iconic residence Mannat is undergoing renovations, Shah Rukh Khan has rented out four floors in the upscale Puja Casa building in Bandra. The cost? A staggering ₹24.15 lakh per month.
While many fans may assume a superstar like SRK would opt for another purchase, this move is strategic. It's temporary, functional, and allows him to maintain privacy and lifestyle standards without committing to another major investment.
Aamir Khan buys a new pad amid redevelopment
In contrast, Aamir Khan—known for his measured decisions both on and off screen—recently purchased a Rs 9 crore flat in Bandra. With his current residence in Pali Hill set for redevelopment, Aamir seems to be making a long-term play, securing a new property even as he waits for possession in the redeveloped building.
His decision reflects a more traditional approach: stay invested in real estate, especially in a locality that aligns with one's stature.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The transaction also included a hefty Rs 58.5 lakh stamp duty and Rs 30,000 registration fee—small change for the superstar, but telling of his commitment to ownership.
The Glamour of Renting
For many younger stars, however,
renting
seems to be the preferred choice. It offers access to luxury living without the burdens of ownership in one of the world's most expensive real estate markets.
and Katrina Kaif, Bollywood's power couple, reportedly renewed the lease on their Juhu apartment—paying Rs 17.01 lakh per month, with a 3-year rent outlay of approximately Rs 6.2 crore.
Add to that a Rs 1.75 crore security deposit, and it's clear that this isn't about affordability—it's about lifestyle without long-term commitment.
Kriti Sanon resides in a 5,184 sq ft duplex in Andheri West, rented from none other than Amitabh Bachchan. At Rs 10 lakh a month, the apartment gives her the luxe image and space a star of her rising stature demands, without locking in crores.
Renting with a Purpose
Not every celeb rents for flash or flexibility.
Some, like veteran actor Anupam Kher, do it out of practicality. 'I prefer renting in Mumbai and investing elsewhere,' he said in an interview, revealing he owns properties in Chandigarh and Shimla, but chooses to stay on lease in the maximum city.
Similarly, Richa Chadha and Ali Fazal chose to rent a sea-facing apartment during what they perceived as a 'depressed market,' showing a mix of financial savvy and emotional detachment from Mumbai's unpredictable real estate scene.
Building Legacy
While many rent for convenience, others, like Aamir Khan and
(who still resides in his iconic Galaxy Apartments), buy to build legacy. Owning a home in Mumbai isn't just a financial decision—it's a statement. A marker of permanence in an otherwise unstable profession.
For fans, these homes become landmarks—'Jalsa,' 'Mannat,' and 'Galaxy' are now Mumbai Darshan mainstays. A generational sense of belonging is rooted in these properties.
In industries like Bollywood, where image is currency and stability is rare, real estate becomes more than shelter—it's a mirror of where a star sees themselves in the arc of their career.
Who Is Renting and Why?
1. Professionals on Temporary Job Assignments
Many tenants today are individuals who have relocated for work on short- to medium-term assignments. These are professionals employed in large or influential companies who are unsure of where they'll be posted next.
As job locations shift post-appraisal or due to internal transfers, committing to property ownership doesn't make financial or practical sense. This leads to high churn in rental housing, with very few tenants staying in the same flat for more than a few years.
2. Displaced Residents from Redevelopment Projects
Another significant segment of renters includes families temporarily displaced due to the redevelopment of their existing properties.
These individuals rent flats while waiting for their redeveloped homes to be completed. This has added to the demand in the rental market, particularly in cities undergoing massive infrastructure and redevelopment drives.
3. Young Adults Delaying Homeownership
The current generation that should be entering the housing market is largely priced out due to high real estate costs and the requirement for a substantial down payment—typically 20% of the property value.
For instance, a Rs 1 crore home requires Rs 20 lakhs upfront. Building such savings early in one's career is unrealistic for most, leading them to prefer renting until they can accumulate the necessary capital.
4. Low Rental Yields for Investors
Most property owners renting out high-value apartments are not professional landlords. They often earn a modest 2–3% rental yield annually. These flats were not bought with the intention of generating rental income but are typically the result of mandatory reinvestment of sale proceeds to avoid tax liabilities.
5. Historic Purchases Dominate the Rental Market
The flats currently available for rent are mostly older or "historic" purchases. Owners have often moved on to better properties but choose not to sell the older ones. Reasons include their emotional attachment to the house or even the lack of urgent financial need. Such properties are retained 'just in case' and only listed for rent when lying vacant.
6. Indian Mindset Towards Real Estate
In India, real estate is seen as a legacy asset, not something to frequently sell or trade.
Many owners avoid selling unless absolutely necessary—such as for funding a wedding, children's education, or financial emergencies. This mentality stems from a broader cultural inclination to hold onto possessions, even unused ones, under the belief that they might be useful in the future.
What should you do?
In a candid chat with ETimes, Prashant Puri, Horseshoe Realty Ventures was asked, With Shah Rukh Khan reportedly renting a home, it brings up an important question: Is renting becoming more popular—even preferred—in major cities like Mumbai? What factors are influencing this trend among the urban elite and should the middle class also consider it as a more feesable option?
"Yes, it's become a trend now.
And if you see it microscopically, these apartments are rented by the people from the same fraternity. So there are two things which are influencing this. One, for two, three years, it doesn't make sense in context of Shah Rukh Khan. It doesn't make sense to buy an apartment because if he is going to sell it again and then he would have to invest a great majority of money to stay in that."
Explaining the math behind these investments, he says, "Right now, his rent runs into so many lakhs.
But what would be the capital worth of that property? Several crores, I'm guessing. So the return on investment is hardly 3%. More than that you get if you keep your money in the Bank FD. He will also enter into the trap of capital gains when he wants to shift back to Mannat."
He adds, "Also, the investment which he will put in to buy a new apartment for a temporary residence. Will not appreciate that much. So paying rent is cheaper."
Now we have these actors and the elite who are renting out these spaces. What benefits are there for a rented apartment versus that of an ownership when it comes to, you know, middle class?
In Mumbai from a middle class segment, either they are people who are on the move or their buildings are going in for redevelopment. Rentals are going up in Mumbai is because Mumbai is entirely under redevelopment, so there is a competition going on between two groups.
There are only so many flats in the city in proximity to work spaces, schools, and the demand is higher than usual because of these development projects.
Hence rentals are soaring.
Celebrities are known to invest in multiple properties, especially in upscale neighbourhoods. In your view, what drives this trend—personal lifestyle needs, investment strategy, or brand image?
In recent months, several high-profile names—from
to Gauri Khan—have reportedly sold their apartments, while
,
and Ranveer Singh have invested Rs 100 crore in luxury homes. What is driving this trend?
"When big stars buy a real estate apartment, those become almost destination apartments.
That's going to be the place where they want to live for years. When you see the smaller apartments being sold by them for Rs 10 crore, Rs 11 crore, most of these are led by capital gain issues or some could also be driven by capital gains.
What is particularly prompting this? Well, the issue is with the Gen Z's and the millennials. If you go by an old book, people would work hard to create a real estate, but now I don't see that going anywhere because the younger lot is more interested in vacationing abroad, dining in expensive restaurants, basically a major portion of the fund flow is going into lifestyle choices than real estate.
Rather than investing in things that are appreciating in nature, people are investing in experiences which depreciate in nature.
Real estate is the most expensive asset and you can buy it only twice or thrice in your entire life.
Equity Players Don't Want You to Buy a Home?
According to Prashant Puri, equity market players—such as mutual fund houses, brokers, and wealth managers—are not incentivised to encourage home buying.
The reason is simple, when an individual invests in real estate, that money exits the equity ecosystem.
'Today, for buying a 1 crore apartment, his 20 lakh rupees is in the market with them. The moment he buys it, that 20 lakh gets out of the market from their system… and gets into real estate, which is jammed.'
This 20% down payment no longer remains investible capital—it's locked into a physical asset. Additionally, the remaining 80% is financed via a home loan, and the monthly EMI payments, which could have otherwise gone into SIPs or stock investments, are now servicing a mortgage.
'He has to pay EMI on the balance 80%. That surplus is also not going to them.'
Hidden Messaging Behind 'Rent Is Better'
Highlights that much of the public narrative around renting being superior to buying is not just consumer wisdom—it's strategic communication driven by financial institutions, Prashant says, 'The messaging also depends on whom it is favouring. If you demotivate them from buying, then that money doesn't go out.'
By encouraging people to rent, the equity ecosystem ensures that disposable income continues to flow into market-linked instruments. This benefits fund managers, advisors, and investment platforms who depend on steady inflows.
Unlike financial instruments, real estate demands significant commitment. It's illiquid, capital-intensive, and emotionally tied to long-term goals. That's why people buy homes only a handful of times in their life.
'Thrice is the maximum, twice is the minimum. So that money, once it's gone into real estate, is stuck.'
Real Struggle for Entry-Level Buyers
Puri points out that the rental segment is largely consumed by people just starting their careers—young professionals with uncertain futures and limited savings. He says, 'The people who are at the entry-level are major consumers of rental accommodation. They still don't know where they will be.'
Even if they aspire to buy, the sheer cost burden discourages them. For instance, an Rs 80 lakh home loan would result in an EMI of Rs 80,000/month—whereas the same apartment could be rented for Rs 20,000. 'The consumer is thinking, why should I pay 80,000 per month to own when I can rent it for Rs 20,000?'
This perceived gap in value plays directly into the equity industry's hands, which benefits when buyers postpone their purchase and keep investing.
'Till then, that Rs 80,000 was going into equities, but now it's going towards building of a real estate, which is going to be there for you with life,' he explains.
This redistribution of funds away from equities is seen as a loss by market players, hence the reluctance to promote homeownership narratives he reasons.
Luxury Buyers Don't Face This Dilemma
For high-end real estate buyers—those purchasing Rs 4–8 crore apartments—this equation doesn't apply.
Their cash flow is not strained, and buying a home is often part of an upgrade rather than a financial struggle. "These apartments are sold by people who have already achieved or arrived in life. Cash flow is not an issue," he says. Such buyers don't face the rent vs buy dilemma; they buy based on lifestyle preferences, not investment logic.
In one of his more direct remarks, Prashant warns consumers that their financial decisions are subtly being influenced.
'Everybody's thought process is being channelised by the drivers of market.' The equity market's consistent messaging—'stay invested', 'don't stop SIPs', and 'compounding works'—is designed to retain capital, even during volatile phases.
Puri predicts, 'One single jolt and everybody would be out of it. That's why the mutual fund industry keeps saying—keep investing, keep investing.'
For the average person watching this spectacle unfold, the choice between renting and buying boils down to more relatable concerns: affordability, long-term goals, and lifestyle needs. Ultimately, the real estate vs equity debate boils down to capital control. Equities offer liquidity, growth, and churn. Real estate offers permanence, security, and capital appreciation over time—but at the cost of cash flow flexibility.