India News | Centre Tells Delhi HC It Cannot Interfere with Statutory Eviction Process Against Delhi Gymkhana Club
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Central government has urged the Delhi High Court not to halt eviction proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club, contending that the dispute must be decided under the statutory mechanism provided by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
New Delhi [India], July 28 (ANI): The Central government has urged the Delhi High Court not to halt eviction proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club, contending that the dispute must be decided under the statutory mechanism provided by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
According to the Centre, once proceedings have been initiated under the Act, the Estate Officer alone has the authority to examine objections relating to the lease, public purpose and eviction, while any appeal lies before the designated appellate authority.
Also Read | Mathura: Overheard Call Exposes Woman Who Strangled 3-Year-Old Son for Crying While Talking to Lover.
The stand was taken in a reply filed through Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit in response to applications moved by Club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, both of whom have sought a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer on June 29, 2026.
The notice was issued after the Centre terminated the Club's 1928 perpetual lease and initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act.
The Union has argued that the applications are not maintainable because Section 15 of the Public Premises Act expressly bars courts from entertaining proceedings relating to eviction from public premises and prohibits the grant of injunctions against action taken or proposed to be taken by an Estate Officer.
According to the government, Parliament has created a self-contained procedure under the Act. The Estate Officer is empowered to conduct an inquiry, consider evidence and decide the matter, while any person aggrieved by the decision has a statutory right to appeal before a judicial officer not below the rank of District Judge.
In view of this framework, the Centre contends that the High Court should not interrupt the statutory process through an interim order.
The reply further states that the show cause notice merely commences the legal process and does not determine any rights. It says the applicants will have a full opportunity to contest the validity of the lease termination, question the public purpose cited by the government and raise every other legal objection before the Estate Officer.
The government has relied upon several judicial decisions, including Union of India v. Mohinder Pratap Soni, Anant Raj Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. DDA and the recent Delhi High Court Division Bench ruling in Union of India v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., to submit that disputes relating to termination of leases and unauthorised occupation of public premises fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of authorities functioning under the Public Premises Act.
It has argued that reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Express Newspapers is misplaced in light of subsequent judgments.
The Centre has also questioned the maintainability of the applications on procedural grounds. It submits that the challenge is based on the June 29 show cause notice, which was issued after the suits had already been filed, and therefore the applicants ought to have first amended their pleadings before seeking interim relief.
Opposing the challenge on merits, the Union has maintained that its right to resume possession flows from Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed, which permits re-entry if the land is required for a public purpose.
The reply states that the premises are needed for defence infrastructure, public security, governance infrastructure and other public-interest projects, and adds that compensation under the lease becomes payable after re-entry in accordance with the contractual terms.
The government has further argued that Vijay Khurana is neither a party to nor a beneficiary of the 1928 lease deed and, therefore, cannot seek to restrain the Union from exercising its contractual rights under the lease.
It has also described the Staff Welfare Association's apprehensions regarding loss of employment as speculative, stating that no retrenchment has taken place and that any employment dispute, if it arises, would be between the employees and the Club.
The matter came up before Justice Avneesh Jhingan on Tuesday. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Vijay Khurana, submitted that the government's reply had been served only late on the previous night and sought time to file a rejoinder.
Accepting the request, the Court granted time and listed the matter for further hearing on September 3. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)