Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Gymkhana Club Against Eviction Order

May 26, 2026 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to grant interim protection against the Central government’s directive requiring the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its 27.3-acre Safdarjung Road premises in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing two civil suits filed by club members and the Staff Welfare Association challenging the Centre’s decision to terminate the lease and reclaim possession of the land for defence and security-related public purposes. While issuing summons in the suits and granting eight weeks for filing written statements, the Court refused to stay the government’s May 22 communication.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the government would not resort to forcible eviction on June 5 and that any process for re-entry or eviction would strictly follow due process of law, including prior notice. Recording the Centre’s statement, the Court observed that no proceedings had yet been initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and held that fears of immediate dispossession were premature.

The dispute centres on Clause 4 of a perpetual lease deed executed in 1928 in favour of the then Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, which permits the government to reclaim the land if required for public purpose. The Union government has argued that the land, situated near the Prime Minister’s residence and other sensitive establishments, is needed for strengthening defence infrastructure, governance facilities and public security measures.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing for the plaintiffs and the Club’s last elected body respectively, argued that the government’s action violated principles of natural justice as no prior show cause notice had been issued. They also questioned the absence of any compensation framework and contended that even an unauthorised occupant cannot be evicted without due process.

The High Court clarified that issues concerning the validity of Clause 4, interpretation of public purpose and legality of the lease termination would be examined during the final adjudication of the suits. It further noted the Centre’s submission that the present governing committee of the Club had itself opposed the termination before authorities, rejecting apprehensions of collusion.

The litigation follows earlier proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal in 2022, where the Centre alleged mismanagement and lease violations by the Club. The tribunal had appointed a government-nominated 15-member committee to oversee the Club’s affairs, an order later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.