The Union government on Tuesday raised a preliminary objection before the Delhi High Court to the maintainability of applications seeking a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer on June 29 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Appearing before Justice Avneesh Jhingan, the Centre contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain any plea seeking to restrain eviction proceedings initiated under the 1971 Act.
The Central government relied on Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and argued that it expressly bars courts from entertaining any suit or proceeding relating to the eviction of persons alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises.
It further submitted that the provision independently prohibits any court from granting an injunction against any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Estate Officer. According to the Centre, the applications directly sought to restrain the Estate Officer from proceeding with the show cause notice and were therefore barred by the statutory prohibition.
The Centre further argued that the Estate Officer alone has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate all issues relating to the eviction proceedings, including challenges to the termination of the lease, the existence of a public purpose and questions relating to compensation. It submitted that these issues fall within the exclusive statutory mechanism under the 1971 Act and cannot be examined by a civil court through an interim injunction.
The Government contended that the applicants were attempting to achieve indirectly, through interim relief, what the substantive law expressly prohibits. It pointed out that higher courts have consistently set aside interim injunctions granted against eviction notices issued under the Public Premises Act and argued that the proper remedy available to the applicants was to participate in the proceedings before the Estate Officer, where all legal and factual objections could be raised and adjudicated.
Rejecting the applicants’ contention that the show cause notice prejudged the outcome of the proceedings and rendered the hearing before the Estate Officer illusory, the Centre maintained that the statutory adjudicatory process itself provides an effective opportunity to challenge the validity of the termination notice and all other issues arising from the eviction proceedings.
The applications were filed by Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association in pending civil suits challenging the Centre’s direction requiring the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its premises. The applicants have sought a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer after the Union Government initiated proceedings to evict the Club from the premises.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the applicants, informed the Court that the Centre’s counter affidavit had been served only late on Monday night and sought time to file a rejoinder. Taking note of the submission, Justice Jhingan directed the parties to complete pleadings expeditiously, continued the existing interim protection operating in the connected proceedings and listed the matter for further hearing on September 3. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for one of the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Union Government.
The dispute arises from the Centre’s decision to invoke Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in 1928 in favour of the erstwhile Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. The clause empowers the lessor, namely the Central Government, to terminate the lease and re-enter the premises if the land is required for a public purpose.
According to the Centre, the 27.3-acre property situated in the strategically sensitive Lutyens’ Delhi area is required for strengthening defence infrastructure, public security and integrated government infrastructure. It has stated that upon re-entry, the entire property, including all buildings, structures, lawns and fixtures, would vest in the President of India through the Land and Development Office (L&DO).
The Delhi Gymkhana Club has challenged the decision, contending that the proposed eviction would abruptly disrupt its functioning, affect nearly 14,000 members and jeopardise the livelihood of more than 500 employees. It has also submitted that the Club is presently being administered by a General Committee appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pursuant to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), pending the constitution of an elected governing body.
The Club has further claimed that its financial position and administrative functioning have significantly improved following regulatory intervention and has urged that no coercive action should be taken until the pending legal proceedings are decided. It has also requested that, if relocation ultimately becomes necessary, the Government should consider allotting alternative land to ensure continuity of the institution.
The present dispute traces its origins to proceedings initiated by the Union Government before the National Company Law Tribunal in 2022 alleging breach of the lease conditions and mismanagement of the Club. The NCLT allowed the Centre’s petition and appointed a 15-member committee nominated by the Government to manage the Club’s day-to-day affairs. That order was subsequently affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Earlier, on May 26, the Delhi High Court had declined to grant interim relief against the Centre’s direction requiring the Club to vacate the premises by June 5 after the Union Government assured the Court that possession would not be taken except in accordance with law. The matter will now be heard on September 3.
The post Centre invokes Public Premises Act to oppose pleas challenging Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction before High Court appeared first on India Legal.