Delhi Gymkhana Club row: Centre says HC cannot halt eviction process
The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the court has no legal power to stop the government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana
The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the court has no legal power to stop the government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana Club land after the club's perpetual lease was terminated and a show-cause notice for eviction was issued by the Estate Officer. In its reply to an application by club member Vijay Khurana seeking a stay on the notice, the government said the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in eviction matters and also prohibits any injunction against action taken by the Estate Officer. Read Full Story On Tuesday, Justice Avneesh Jhingan posted Khurana's suit and a similar suit by the club's staff for hearing on September 3 after their senior counsel said the reply had been received late the previous night and a rejoinder would be filed. When the plaintiffs' senior counsel sought a clarification on whether the Centre's earlier assurance of seeking an adjournment before the Estate Officer would continue in the meantime, the court said, "obviously". In its reply, the Centre said the PP Act has its own adjudicatory and appellate machinery, and Khurana's application was liable to be dismissed as misconceived, misplaced and barred by law, particularly because the Estate Officer's competence to issue the show-cause notice could not be disputed. "The proper remedy for the grievance sought to be litigated by injunction is participation in the hearing before the Estate Officer itself, where all grounds, including the challenge to the validity of determination, may be raised and must be considered.
The present Application, which seeks precisely such an injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding with the SCN, falls squarely within the express prohibition (under the PP Act)," the reply said. The Centre further said, "The lease dated 28.02.1928 stands validly determined by notice dated 22.05.2026 under Clause 4 thereof, and Defendant No. 2's continued occupation though lawful at inception has...ceased to be authorised within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the PP Act." It added, "It follows a fortiori that any injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding under Section 4 pursuant to the SCN dated June 29 would impermissibly impact this statutory vested right of the Answering Defendant, and the present Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone." In the response filed through standing counsel Ashish Dixit, the Centre also said this was not a case of "compulsory acquisition" because the perpetual lease itself "expressly and unambiguously" reserved the government's right to determine the agreement and re-enter the premises for a "public purpose". It said that since the lease deed was a bilateral instrument between the Centre and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, a member who was neither a party to nor privy to the agreement could not independently restrain the authorities from exercising their contractual rights. "It is not for the applicant, a club member with no independent stake in the public project, to demand disclosure of security and defence considerations underlying the governmental decision at this interlocutory stage," the response said. The Centre also said it was fully prepared to discharge its "compensation obligations" under the lease deed upon taking possession.
The BriefWire