Patiala House Court refused to stay a 15-day eviction notice to Delhi Race Club. The Court dismissed Delhi Race Club’s petition for interim stay. An eviction order was issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unlawful Occupants) Act on August 11, 2026.
Principal District and Sessions Judge ( PDSJ) Pitambar Dutt dismissed the petition, saying, “I am of the considered view that the appellant has failed to make a prima facie case for stay of the impugned order of 11.08.2026 passed by the Estate Officer in a case titled as Union of India Vs Delhi Race Club.”
“Accordingly, the application filed by the appellant for interim stay is dismissed,” PDSJ Dutt ordered on August 25.
The matter is re-notified for disposal of the appeal on September 26.
The government agency had initiated the proceedings for eviction under Section 5 of the PP Act before the Estate Officer, who issued a show cause notice, pursuant to which the appellant appeared and sought various opportunities to file a reply.
It is noted that despite various opportunities, the appellant did not file any reply nor put forth any plea before the Estate Officer; therefore, the Estate Officer has passed the order on the basis of the material placed before it by the respondent.
It was argued on behalf of the club that the eviction order of August 11 violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Central Government said that the club’s lease has not been renewed since 1994. Advocate Ashish Dikshit appeared for the Central Government.
The Delhi Race Club had stated that the Club was not provided with a copy of the complaint despite repeated requests.
The Central Government’s lawyer stated that no lease had been renewed after 1994. It was stated that the Club had been in possession on a monthly basis since then, and that the Estate Officer had indeed provided the Club with a copy of the complaint and given it several opportunities to file a response, which the Club failed to comply with.
The club contended that the appellant has always been making the payment of rent and
the lease was never determined. It was further contended that the respondent demanded a sum of ₹3,48,82,723 for the purpose of extension of lease deed which was duly deposited by the appellant on 23.08.2013. Thus, the lease was extended by the conduct of the parties.
The court rejected the contention of Counsel for the appellant (club); however, not sustainable because the amount of ₹3,48,82,723 was not the amount of future rent deposited by the appellant for extension of the lease but was as per the demand letter dated July 22, 2013. The amount of ₹3,48,82,723 was the net recoverable amount towards damages up to July 4, 2013.
