Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To Gymkhana Club In Eviction Dispute
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi Gymkhana Club in its ongoing eviction dispute with the Centre, while recording the government’s assurance that no forceful or coercive eviction would take place without prior notice and due legal process.
Justice A. Jhingan issued notices to the Centre on petitions filed by members of the 113-year-old elite club and its staff welfare association, and posted the matter for hearing at the end of July.
The dispute arose after the Land and Development Office (L&DO) directed the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its 27.3-acre premises by June 5. The government invoked clause 4 of the original lease deed, which permits resumption of the land for “public purpose” and security-related requirements.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, assured the court that any eviction proceedings would be carried out strictly in accordance with law and not through police force.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the club members, argued that the eviction notice was arbitrary and violated due process. He contended that the Centre had failed to clearly specify the exact “public purpose” for reclaiming the land.
A separate plea filed by the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club was argued by senior advocate Kapil Sibal. He submitted that even in cases of alleged unauthorised occupation, the law requires a proper show-cause procedure before eviction.
The Centre maintained that the club had been directed to peacefully hand over possession and that legal measures would only follow in case of non-compliance.
The L&DO, under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, had earlier issued multiple notices to the club regarding pending ground rent dues amounting to Rs 47.58 crore.
The court also took note of previous litigation concerning the club’s administration. Earlier, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had allowed the Centre to nominate members for managing the club’s affairs, a decision later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
