Eviction Of Delhi Gymkhana Club Will Be After Notice As Per Law : Centre To Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (May 26) refused interim relief against Centre's order directing the prestigious Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its 27.3 acre premises in Lutyens' Delhi by June 5.

This comes after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the Club has been asked for peaceful hand over of possession and that eviction, if so to be done, will be in accordance with law, with prior notice.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that as of date, there is nothing on record to substantiate that action under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been taken against the Club.

The development comes in two suits filed by the Club and its members challenging the Centre's order directing it to vacate its 27.3 acre premises in Lutyens' Delhi by June 5.

The Court has issued summons in the suit and called for filing of written statement within 8 weeks.

It however observed that the apprehension expressed by members of the Club that the governing body is 'hand in glove' with the Centre and may hand over the possession "is contrary to stand taken by the Club". It noted that the Governing Committee of the Club had already approached the authorities raising grievance against termination of lease.

The Court further said that the members can avail their remedies if the need so arises in future.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for the members submitted that the Centre passed a final order against the Club, without issuing any show cause notice. "No natural justice followed. It is a final order. No mention of compensation also there."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta however submitted that the Central government has the power under the agreement to determine the lease.

For context, Clause 4 of the Lease Deed provides that if the premises are required for a public purpose then, it shall be lawful for the Lessor to re-enter the premises.

Mehta added that it was not the case of the Club that there has been a violation of the lease deed. He added that there's no question of forceful eviction and the Centre has directed "peaceful hand over of possession".

"Clause 4 provides for various steps to be taken where we first determine lease on ground of public interest. This is termination of lease under clause 5. Second is compensation which can be in terms of money or govt may offer alternate accommodation. We have given option to vacate on its own...its not that police will rush in and forcible possession will take over. It will be as per law. We will have to give notice, etc."

However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the last elected body contended that all clauses (in the lease agreement) have to be tested on touchstone of Constitution.

"Even unauthorized occupant has to be proceeded against pursuant to a notice. I'm an authorized occupant but no notice was given. Any such clause which allows govt to take over is an anathema to Constitution. This order is in the teeth of Constitution...show cause notice for eviction and re-entry cannot be post facto, i.e. after UOI entering the premises."

Though SG Mehta questioned the locus of an earlier body, Sibal submitted that they're all members of the Club.

The Court then asked if vires of clause can be challenged in a suit. Sibal responded, "I'm saying don't interpret the clause in a manner allowing them (Centre) to enter...Public purpose has to be demonstrated in the facts of the case...Centre's order is vague and does not specify a thing."

Singhvi also cited precdents to contend that public purpose must be real and definite. "Adjectives could not make up public purpose. I will have to refer to a thesarus. 'Public security, defence, governance infra, public infra projects'. With great respect, can your lordship cover the universe in these six broad adjectives?...Action is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution."

Mehta submitted that the Club apprehended that nominees of Union of India, who are running the Club, may act in tandem with the Centre to hand over possession of the Club. He however submitted that such an apprehension is baseless inasmuch as the Governing Committee of the Club had already approached the authorities raising grievance against termination of lease.

After hearing the parties, the Court was of the view that the issue with regard to validity of Clause 4 and whether the communication is in consonance of clause 4 and termination for public purpose, need not be dilated at this stage as it would impact merits of suit. "Remedies against termination and re-entry would be subject matter of main suit," it said.

Central government has claimed the land parcel is located in a highly sensitive and strategic area of Delhi and is “critically required for the strengthening and securing of Defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes”.

The premises situated at Safdarjung Road were leased to the Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (now known as Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd) for maintaining a social and sporting club.

Case title: VIJAY KHURANA v/s UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE MINISTRY OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND ANR

CS(OS)-507/2026