The central government on Tuesday assured the Delhi High Court that it will not take “immediate possession” of the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises on June 5, and that any eviction proceedings would be carried out strictly in accordance with the law after issuing prior notice .
The assurance came during a hearing on multiple civil suits filed by club members, the Staff Welfare Association, and the last elected body of the Club challenging the Centre’s May 22 order directing the Club to hand over the 27.3-acre Safdarjung Road premises .
What the Centre told the court
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified before Justice Avneesh Jhingan that the May 22 communication “merely terminated the perpetual lease and sought re-entry into the Gymkhana land under Clause 4 of the lease deed,” and was not an order for immediate eviction .
“We will not take possession except as per the procedure established by law. It cannot be on the 5th, because we will have to issue notice, etc. It’s not that on the 5th, somebody will grant consent,” Mehta submitted .
He assured the court that any eviction proceedings, if undertaken, would only be carried out after issuing due notice to the occupants and following the prescribed legal process .
Court declines interim relief
Recording the Solicitor General’s statement, Justice Jhingan declined to pass any interim directions at this stage. The Bench observed that “in view of the Centre’s assurance that eviction, if any, would follow due process and prior notice, no interim protection was required at present” .
The court noted that issues relating to the validity of Clause 4, whether the impugned communication conforms to the lease deed, and whether the stated grounds genuinely constitute a “public purpose” need not be examined at the present stage .
Members challenge eviction order
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for club member Vijay Khurana, argued that no prior notice had been issued before the government’s May 22 communication and contended that the action suffered from “legal mala fides” .
He argued that a perpetual lease is nearly equivalent to a transfer of title and that re-entry cannot be enforced through mere executive action .
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the last elected body of the Club, argued that even an unauthorised occupant cannot be dispossessed without notice and due process. He submitted that Clause 4 of the lease deed, having been incorporated prior to the Constitution coming into force, must now be tested on constitutional principles .
Why the Centre wants the land
The Centre invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in 1928, which permits re-entry by the lessor if the premises are required for a “public purpose” .
The Land and Development Office (L&DO) order stated that the property is located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” of the national capital and is critically required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes” .
Club’s plea for reconsideration
The Club wrote to the L&DO on May 23 requesting that there should be “no dislocation” of its operations until several issues are clarified, including whether the government is considering allotting an “appropriately located alternate plot of land” for relocation .
The Club highlighted that it has around 14,000 members and employs more than 500 people, and that it moved from a loss of around Rs 12 crore in 2021-22 to a projected profit of around Rs 9 crore in 2023-24 .
What happens next
The court issued summons to the Centre and the Club management on the lawsuits and directed them to file written statements within eight weeks . The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
The Bench noted that as on date, no action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been initiated, clarifying that the plaintiffs would be free to avail legal remedies in accordance with the law if such proceedings are commenced in future .
The Club’s governing committee, currently comprising nominees of the Centre following NCLT proceedings, has itself written to the authorities opposing the May 22 communication, the court noted .
