The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought responses on pleas filed by members and employees of the Delhi Gymkhana Club against the Centre’s direction asking the institution to vacate its 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5.

 

The court, however, declined to grant interim protection against the May 22 communication after the Union government assured that any eviction process would be carried out strictly in accordance with law.

 

Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the apprehensions raised by the petitioners were premature in the absence of any proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

 
 

“The issue is premature and presumptive. As on date, there is nothing on record to substantiate that action under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been taken and in case the need so arises, the plaintiffs can avail remedies in accordance with law. In view of the statements made by the SG (solicitor general), no further interim directions are called for. The statement is to the effect that the eviction, if so, will be done following a prior notice. At the cost of repetition, the apprehension that the club governing body may hand over the possession of the club is contrary to the stand taken by the club,” the court said.

 

The court was dealing with two suits, one by long-time club member Vijay Khurana and another by the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, assailing the Centre’s order requiring the club to vacate the Safdarjung Road property.

 

At the beginning of the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the club’s last elected management body, informed the court that a separate petition had also been filed by them.

 

“Please list it along with the two matters listed today. I don’t want to wait. Please, I will argue along with them. I am not saying they should wait… I will bring my petition and argue,” he submitted. 

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, defended the action by referring to Clause 4 of the lease deed.

 

“Clause 4 provides for a system under which we can determine the lease. It provides for various steps to be taken. There are consequences. One of it is compensation to be paid, the compensation can be money, or government can give alternate piece of land. We will act in accordance with procedure established by law. We can’t just go and vacate it,” he argued.

 

Representing Khurana, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the current governing structure of the club was effectively under government control following proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

 

“There is no easy way out. They went to NCLT and NCLAT, which replaced the 15-member previous committee. The net result today is that the oppressed is part of the oppressor. We are members, it is a non-profit company…the plaintiff today should be D2 [Gymkhana], but since it is now replaced by 15 nominated members of Mr Mehta, let’s put it bluntly,” Singhvi submitted.

 

The bench then asked the solicitor general whether possession would be taken on June 5.

 

Mehta responded, “We will not take possession except as per the procedure established by law.”

 

When Singhvi argued that the club was now being administered by government nominees, the court remarked, “You can’t say government, they are nominees.”

 

Singhvi further referred to interim protection granted in matters involving the Delhi Race Club and Polo Club, though Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma informed the court that the stay in the Delhi Race Club matter had already been set aside by a division bench.

 

As Singhvi pressed for interim relief, Justice Jhingan asked whether the concern was limited to possible proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

 

“I want my lords to order that government will not take any steps pursuant to this notice. Saying ‘except in accordance with law’ will nullify it [protection that the court may grant]…You have to simultaneously give compensation, in this case there is no compensation,” Singhvi said.

 

Sibal argued separately that the government’s action was constitutionally untenable.

 

“They can’t pass this order. This order is in teeth of Article 14 because the Constitution applies now. This is an anathema. The problem is once they enter premises…They have no right to enter,” he submitted.

 

When the court questioned the maintainability of the plea by the former elected body in light of orders passed by the NCLT and upheld by the NCLAT, Sibal responded that he was also before the court in his capacity as a club member.

 

“Let’s assume I am all wrong. Then who will challenge this order? I am also a member. There is no doubt on that,” he argued.

 

Sibal further attacked Clause 4 of the lease deed, describing it as a relic of colonial governance.

 

“Clause 4 was under an imperial government. This can’t happen now after the Constitution is in force,” he argued, adding that the clause could not be interpreted to permit re-entry without notice or due process.

 

The court questioned whether the constitutional validity of the clause could be challenged in a civil suit, to which Sibal replied that he was asking the court not to interpret the clause in a manner that would permit forcible entry.

 

Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the Staff Welfare Association, argued that the Centre could not exercise re-entry rights without instituting legal proceedings. He also expressed concern that the government-appointed administrators of the club might facilitate transfer of possession.

 

“They should not take action which frustrates my suit. The club is today in the hands of people who may not take action for the protection of its interests,” he said.

 

Responding to the court’s query, SG Mehta said there could be no forcible eviction.

 

“My statement is that there cannot be any eviction by force, police force. It can only be as per procedure established by law. There is divergence of views between Mr Singhvi and Sibal’s clients. We will also challenge the locus of the members,” he submitted.

 

The land housing the Delhi Gymkhana Club was granted on perpetual lease in 1928. Clause 4 of the lease permits the lessor, the Central government, to resume possession for public purposes. 

In 2022, the Centre approached the NCLT alleging lease violations and mismanagement at the club. The tribunal subsequently appointed a 15-member committee nominated by the government to oversee the club’s affairs, a decision later affirmed by the NCLAT.

 

On May 22, the Land and Development Office directed the club to hand over possession of the 27.3-acre property at 2, Safdarjung Road, citing requirements linked to “strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure”, governance facilities, and other public security purposes because of the site’s proximity to the Prime Minister’s residence and other high-security establishments in Lutyens’ Delhi.

 

Khurana’s plea alleges that the Centre’s justification is vague and unsupported by material particulars, and contends that the move amounts to an arbitrary attempt to take over the institution without compensation or lawful acquisition.