The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief against the Central government’s order directing the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its 27.3-acre premises at Safdarjung Road in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan passed the order on two civil suits filed by club members and the Staff Welfare Association challenging the government’s decision to terminate the lease and resume possession of the property for stated public purposes linked to defence and security infrastructure.
The Court issued summons in the suits and directed filing of written statements within eight weeks. However, it declined to stay the government’s May 22 communication after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that no forcible eviction would take place and that any action for re-entry or eviction would be undertaken strictly in accordance with due process of law and after issuance of prior notice.
The Court observed that, at present, no proceedings had been initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against the Club and held that the apprehension expressed by the plaintiffs regarding immediate dispossession was premature. It further noted that remedies available under law could be invoked if coercive action was initiated in future.
The dispute arises from the Centre’s decision to invoke Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in 1928 in favour of the then Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, now known as Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. The clause permits the lessor to re-enter the premises if the land is required for public purpose.
The Union government has claimed that the land parcel, located near the Prime Minister’s residence and other sensitive establishments in Lutyens’ Delhi, is required for strengthening defence infrastructure, governance facilities and public security purposes.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the plaintiffs, argued that the government had passed a final order without issuing any prior show cause notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Article 300A of the Constitution. He also contended that the order did not disclose any compensation mechanism despite termination of perpetual leasehold rights.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the last elected body of the Club, argued that the lease conditions must be tested on the touchstone of constitutional principles and due process requirements. He contended that even an unauthorised occupant could not be evicted without notice and argued that the power of re-entry under the lease deed could not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
The Court, however, observed that questions relating to the validity of Clause 4, legality of the termination, and interpretation of public purpose would be examined during adjudication of the main suit and need not be conclusively determined at the interim stage, as any findings could affect the merits of the pending proceedings.
The Court also took note of the government’s submission that the presently constituted governing committee of the Club had itself approached authorities opposing termination of the lease. It therefore rejected the apprehension that the governing body would act in collusion with the Centre to voluntarily hand over possession of the premises.
The litigation also stems from proceedings initiated by the Centre before the National Company Law Tribunal in 2022 alleging mismanagement and violation of lease conditions by the Club. The tribunal had directed appointment of a 15-member committee nominated by the government to manage the affairs of the Club, an order later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
The post Delhi High Court refuses to stay Central order directing Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate premises by June 5 appeared first on India Legal.