Centre Tells Delhi High Court Eviction Proceedings Against Delhi Gymkhana Club Cannot Be Stayed Under Public Premises Act

July 28, 2026 : The Union Government on Tuesday raised a preliminary objection before the Delhi High Court against applications seeking a stay on eviction proceedings initiated against the Delhi Gymkhana Club under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Centre argued that the High Court has no jurisdiction to restrain proceedings conducted by the Estate Officer under the special statute.

Appearing before Justice Avneesh Jhingan, the Central Government submitted that Section 15 of the Public Premises Act expressly bars courts from entertaining suits or proceedings relating to the eviction of alleged unauthorised occupants of public premises. It further contended that the provision also prohibits courts from granting injunctions against actions taken or proposed by the Estate Officer, making the applications for a stay legally untenable.

The Centre argued that all disputes arising from the eviction process, including the validity of the lease termination, the existence of a public purpose, and issues relating to compensation, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the 1971 Act. According to the Government, the applicants were attempting to secure interim relief that the statute itself expressly prohibits.

Rejecting the applicants’ claim that the show cause notice had already predetermined the outcome of the proceedings, the Centre maintained that the statutory process provides a complete opportunity to challenge the termination notice and raise all legal and factual objections before the Estate Officer. It also relied on previous judicial precedents where interim injunctions against eviction notices under the Public Premises Act had been set aside.

The applications were filed by Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association in pending civil suits challenging the Centre’s decision directing the Club to vacate its premises. They sought a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer after eviction proceedings were initiated.

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 requested time to file a rejoinder. Accepting the request, Justice Jhingan directed the parties to complete pleadings expeditiously, continued the existing interim protection 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 stems 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 authorises the Central Government to terminate the lease and reclaim the property if it is required for a public purpose.

According to the Government, the 27.3-acre property in Lutyens’ Delhi is required for strengthening defence infrastructure, public security, and integrated government facilities. Upon re-entry, the entire property, including 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 opposed the move, arguing that the eviction would disrupt its operations, affect nearly 14,000 members, and threaten the livelihood of more than 500 employees. The Club also pointed out that it is currently being administered by a Government-appointed General Committee following proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), pending the constitution of an elected governing body. It submitted that its financial and administrative functioning has improved significantly under the current management and urged the Court to prevent any coercive action until the pending legal proceedings are concluded. The Club has also requested that alternative land be allotted if relocation eventually becomes necessary.

The dispute traces back to 2022, when the Union Government approached the NCLT alleging breach of lease conditions and mismanagement by the Club. The NCLT appointed a 15-member committee nominated by the Government to manage the Club’s affairs, a decision later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Earlier, on May 26, the Delhi High Court declined to grant interim relief against the Government’s direction requiring the Club to vacate the premises by June 5 after the Centre assured the Court that possession would not be taken except in accordance with law. The matter will now come up for hearing on September 3.