The Central government has asserted to the Delhi High Court its stance that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear pleas that seek to halt the eviction process against the Delhi Gymkhana Club. This argument is based on Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which explicitly restricts any court from hearing cases related to eviction proceedings or issuing injunctions against actions taken by an Estate Officer.
According to the government’s submission, filed by Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, “The restriction is twofold: (i) it removes civil court jurisdiction over any suit or proceeding regarding the eviction of a person alleged to be unlawfully occupying public premises; and (ii) it independently forbids the issuance of any injunction concerning any action taken or to be taken by the Estate Officer. The current application, which seeks such an injunction to restrain the Estate Officer from proceeding with the show cause notice (SCN), falls directly within the explicit prohibition of Section 15.”
This government response came after two applications were lodged by Gymkhana member Vijay Khurana and the club’s staff welfare association, aiming to pause the show cause notice issued on June 29. The notice followed a plea from the Central government seeking the Club’s eviction.
Khurana and the Gymkhana staff welfare association had filed these applications in their ongoing suits challenging the government’s directive to vacate the premises. Justice Avneesh Jhingan presided over the hearing today, where Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singh, representing Khurana, requested additional time to respond to the government’s reply, which was received late the previous night. Consequently, the court has scheduled further proceedings for September 3.
In its reply, the government also emphasized that the Estate Officer, rather than the civil court, possesses the sole authority to adjudicate the matters raised in the applications submitted by Khurana and the staff welfare association. The government further highlighted that interim stays against eviction notices have been overturned by higher courts.
More Read
The government argued, “The entirety of the Applicant’s substantive grievance—the validity of Clause 4 termination, the authenticity of ‘public purpose,’ and the lack of stated compensation—falls strictly within this exclusive statutory domain. The civil suit is not the suitable forum to preempt this determination, nor can an interim injunction be used to achieve indirectly what the substantive law does not allow directly.”
The government also dismissed claims that the eviction notice “prejudges” the outcome and makes any hearing “illusory.” It suggested that the appropriate course of action for those grievances is to participate in the hearing before the Estate Officer, where all concerns, including challenges to the determination’s validity, can be raised and must be considered.
The club operates on land granted on a perpetual lease in 1928. Clause 4 of the lease agreement provides that the premises can be reclaimed by the lessor (the Central government) if needed for public purposes. In 2022, the Centre initiated proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the club for lease violations and mismanagement. The NCLT approved the petition and ordered the appointment of 15 members nominated by the Centre to manage the Club’s daily operations. This order was later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
