A Delhi Court on Tuesday (August 25) refused to stay an eviction order issued to Delhi Race Club by the Estate Officer, observing that despite ample opportunities granted to the club to present its case it failed to do so.

The court observed that not only did the Estate officer supply a copy of the plaint filed by the respondent Union of India to the appellant Club, but also granted sufficient opportunities to the Club to file its reply which it did not file for "reasons best known" to it.

Principal District & Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt, Patiala House Courts in his order said:

"Perusal of the record of the Estate Officer clearly shows that the Estate Officer had afforded more than sufficient opportunities to the appellant/respondent but they did not submit their reply and evidence. The appellant/respondent failed to submit any reply due to which the Estate Officer was constrained to close their right and reserved the matter for orders"

The senior counsel appearing for the Club contended that principle of natural justice has been violated as the copy of the plaint was not supplied to the appellant by the Estate Officer.

The court however rejected the contention noting that in the order dated 27.04.2026, the Estate Officer has specifically mentioned that the copy of the plaint was supplied to the appellant.

"The said order sheet was signed by the Col. S.K. Bakshi, Secretary of appellant and legal representative. Thereafter on none of the dates, the appellant made any request to the Estate Officer that copy of the plaint was not supplied.All these facts clearly shows that the appellant was duly supplied the copy of plaint. The appellant, however, failed to put their reply and evidence before the Estate Officer, despite granting ample opportunity" the court said.

Before filing proceeding U/s.5 of Public Premises Act before Estate Officer, the respondent had issued a notice dated 12.03.2026 asking the Club to vacate the land and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire premises to the Land and Development Office within a period of 15 days failing which Government of India shall be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction and recovery of possession of the said land in accordance with law.

This notice of re-entry was duly served upon the appellant, the court said. The Club meanwhile filed a civil suit against this notice before the Delhi High Court which initially granted interim protection.

Therein the Counsel appearing for the respondent made a statement before the high court that they shall not dispossesses the Club without due process of law. In view of this submission, the suit was disposed of on 09.04.2026.

After that, respondent Union filed a plaint before the Estate Officer wherein show cause notice was served upon the Club; but, the court said, despite service of show cause notice, the Club failed to contest the proceedings and failed to file reply.

It thus rejected the Club's contention that the show cause notice of the proceeding initiated by the Estate Officer is barred by res judicata.

With respect to contention on payment of rent the court said:

"It is relevant to mention that after 1994, no document was issued by the respondent renewing the lease beyond 1994. The appellant has contended that they have been making the payment of the rent without any default, therefore, they cannot be termed as unauthorized occupant. It is well settled law that mere payment of rent after the expiration of the terms of the lease deed cannot be construed as renewal of the lease which has already expired...
The appellant has thus failed to make out any prima facie case for stay of the impugned order dated 11.08.2026. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that appellant has failed to make a prima facie case for stay of the impugned order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer in case No.ESO/11/3 (1) /2026 titled as Union of India Vs. Delhi Race Club. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant/appellant for interim stay is dismissed"

The court dismissed the interim application for stay of the order and has listed the main appeal for disposal on September 26.

Case title: Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

PPA No.19/2026

Appearance:

Sh. Suhail Dutt, Ld. Sr. Advocate with Sh. Azhar Alam and Sh. Sankalp Goswami, Ld. Counsels for the appellant.

Sh. Ashish K. Dixit, Ld. C.G.S.C. with Sh. Umar Hashmi, Sh. Ayush Kumar, Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Sh. Gaurav and Sh. Suchit Goyal, Ld. Counsels for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order