A recent ruling by the Patiala House Court has quashed the Delhi Race Club’s attempt to delay an eviction order, marking a significant turn in a legal battle over the Club’s presence in Lutyens’ Delhi. The century-old institution, renowned for its equestrian heritage, is located on Central Golf Link Road, directly opposite the Prime Minister’s official residence.
On Tuesday, Principal District & Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt delivered the decision that dismissed the Delhi Race Club’s plea for an interim stay against the eviction order issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. This order, dated August 11, 2026, had instructed the Club to vacate its premises within a 15-day timeframe.
The court’s reasoning was clear: “In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the 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,” stated Judge Dutt.
Representing the Delhi Race Club, Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt argued that the eviction order violated principles of natural justice. He claimed that the Club had not received a copy of the plaint, despite multiple requests, and raised concerns over the proceedings being barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This legal principle prevents a case from being reopened once it has been decided. Dutt pointed to a 1999 show cause notice that had been quashed by the Delhi High Court as evidence of this principle in play.
Furthermore, Dutt argued that the Club’s continued payment of rent, alongside a lease-extension deposit made in 2013, effectively renewed their lease. However, these arguments were countered by Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K. Dixit, who represented the government.
More Read
Dixit clarified that no lease renewal had occurred post-1994, and the Club’s occupancy was merely on a month-to-month basis. He added that the Estate Officer had indeed provided the necessary documents to the Club and offered multiple opportunities to respond, which the Club neglected.
Upon reviewing the Estate Officer’s records, the court noted that the plaint had been duly supplied, and the Club’s representative had acknowledged receipt by signing the order sheet. Judge Dutt dismissed the res judicata argument, emphasizing that the earlier notice had not involved a lease determination or invoked any re-entry clause. Additionally, he reaffirmed that paying rent post-lease expiration does not constitute lease renewal.
The court’s conclusion was definitive: the Delhi Race Club did not present a substantial case to justify a stay of the eviction order. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed, and the eviction order remains in force.
