Ambassador Hotel Appeals Against Eviction in Delhi High Court
In a developing legal battle, the Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central Government and the Land and Development Office (L&DO) based on a petition challenging the eviction process under the Public Premises Act. This legal dispute involves the iconic Ambassador Hotel situated in the Sujan Singh Park area. The court’s response came during a hearing presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
Justice Shankar has directed that the involved parties submit their responses within three weeks concerning the petition filed by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited, the legal entity that owns the Ambassador Hotel. Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, representing the petitioners, urged the court to suspend the eviction proceedings.
Arguments and Counterarguments in Court
Advocate Nandrajog highlighted procedural concerns, stating, “The Estate Officer has not addressed any of my arguments and has postponed the decision-making. Without the ability to present documents, a ruling could be imminent, which necessitates an immediate stay on the eviction notice.”
Opposing the plea, Advocate Ashish Dixit, representing the Central Government, argued that the petition lacked legal grounds. He assured the court that no immediate actions would occur on the scheduled date of July 10, allowing the Estate Officer’s proceedings to continue.
Legal Basis of the Petition
The dispute arose after the Estate Officer of the L&DO issued an eviction notice on June 11. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons contends that the Estate Officer lacks the necessary jurisdiction, calling for the cancellation of the eviction notice for the 7.58-acre Sujan Singh Park (North) area, which houses the Ambassador Hotel and several residential flats.
The company argues that the ownership dispute, along with the Union Government’s claim of re-entry into the property in 1960, is already pending in an appellate court. Therefore, they assert that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act are inappropriate.
According to the petition, the company has maintained uninterrupted control of the property since 1943. It further claimed that the government’s re-entry attempt was previously ruled illegal by a trial court, a decision that stood for 17 years before being overturned by an appellate court in June. This appellate decision is currently under a second appeal.
Moreover, the petitioners allege that the eviction notice is based on the appellate court’s judgment, despite the Union Government’s earlier commitment to conduct Public Premises Act proceedings independently of that judgment.
