No legal power to halt Gymkhana eviction, Govt informs Delhi HC

The Centre informed the Delhi High Court that it has no legal power to restrain the Government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana Club land here after the termination of the perpetual lease for the club and issuance of a show-cause notice for eviction by the Estate Officer.

In a response to a plea by Delhi Gymkhana Club member Vijay Khurana seeking a stay on the show-cause notice, the Government asserted that under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, a civil court’s jurisdiction over any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction is barred and the grant of any injunction in respect of the Estate Officer’s action is also prohibited.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan on Tuesday posted Khurana’s lawsuit, as well as the lawsuit by the Gymkhana staff, for hearing on September 3 after their senior counsel submitted that they received the reply late last night and would file a rejoinder.

As the plaintiff’s senior counsel sought clarification on the continuation of the Centre’s assurance regarding getting the hearing adjourned before the Estate Officer in the meantime, the court responded, “obviously”.

In its reply, the Centre explained that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (PP Act) has its own adjudicatory and appellate machinery, and Khurana’s application was liable to be dismissed for being misconceived, misplaced, barred by law, especially since the Estate Officer’s competence to issue the show-cause notice (SCN) cannot 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 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 follows a fortiori that any injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding under Section 4 pursuant to the SCN dated 29.06.2026 would impermissibly impact this statutory vested right of the Answering Defendant, and the present Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone,” it added.

The Centre, in the response filed through standing counsel Ashish Dixit, also clarified that it was not a case of “compulsory acquisition” because the perpetual lease itself “expressly and unambiguously” reserved its right to determine the agreement and re-enter the premises for a “public purpose”.

Given that the perpetual lease deed was a bilateral instrument between the Centre and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, a member — who was neither a party nor privy to the agreement — cannot 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 asserted.

The Centre also said it was fully prepared to discharge its “compensation obligations” under the lease deed upon taking possession.

A similar reply was also filed by the Centre to an application by the Gymkhana staff seeking a stay on the show-cause notice.