Delhi HC to hear Gymkhana Club eviction pleas on November 25

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it would hear on November 25 two lawsuits challenging the Centre's move to evict the Delhi Gymkhana Club from its 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road, noting that an earlier judicial order already restrained the estate officer from passing a final eviction order until November 17.

Justice Manoj Jain observed that a coordinate bench of the High Court had permitted proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to continue but had directed that no final order be passed until the next hearing.

"In view of the order passed by the coordinate bench (in another petition relating to the Gymkhana issue), there is no requirement of passing of any further orders at this stage," Justice Jain said.

The court initially scheduled the matters for November 19 but subsequently changed the date to November 25 after counsel for one of the plaintiffs expressed inconvenience.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit represented the Centre.

𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗳𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

The court was hearing separate lawsuits filed by club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association against the Land and Development Office's (L&DO) decision to terminate the club's perpetual lease.

On May 22, the L&DO issued an order terminating the lease of the colonial-era club and directing it to surrender the land by June 5, citing the need for "strengthening and securing defence infrastructure".

The decision triggered legal challenges from club members and employees, who questioned the grounds for termination and the subsequent eviction proceedings.

Khurana's lawsuit is stated to have the support of more than 500 club members. The plaintiffs have also sought a stay on the June 29 show-cause notice issued by an L&DO estate officer to the club's management.

During Wednesday's hearing, Justice Jain noted that the estate officer had continued proceedings after the October 16 order passed by the coordinate bench but had acknowledged the restriction against issuing a final order.

𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲

In October, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Mahajan sought the Centre's response to a petition filed by several Delhi Gymkhana Club members challenging the government's decision to take over the property and initiate eviction proceedings.

The bench permitted the estate officer to proceed with the matter under the Public Premises Act but restrained the passing of a final order until November 17.

The Centre had earlier assured the court that it would not take coercive action in connection with the eviction for the time being.

In its response to the main lawsuit, the government maintained that the petitions were liable to be dismissed.

It argued that third parties could not restrain the enforcement of rights arising from the terminated lease deed between the authorities and the club.

𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀

The Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association has argued that the eviction threatens the livelihoods of employees working at the establishment.

The association represents cooks, waiters, kitchen and housekeeping personnel, gardeners, groundsmen, electricians, plumbers, lifeguards, security personnel and other employees.

In its lawsuit, the association sought protection of its members' livelihoods and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, which concern equality before the law, the freedom to practise a profession and the protection of life and personal liberty.

Seeking to quash the Centre's May 22 notice, the association emphasised that the club was not merely a recreational establishment but the workplace on which its members depended for their income.

The employees argued that the proposed eviction could jeopardise their financial security and employment without adequate safeguards.

𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀

In his lawsuit, Khurana challenged the Centre's justification for terminating the lease, describing the stated reasons relating to defence infrastructure and security as vague and generalised.

He alleged that the explanation was a "sham" and that the government's action amounted to an attempt to forcibly evict the club without following due process.

Khurana also challenged the June 29 show-cause notice, contending that it was based on premature assumptions about the legal status of the club's lease.

His interim application argued that the notice proceeded on "entirely erroneous and premature assumptions" that undermined the basis of the pending lawsuit.

The application maintained that the eviction notice was premature because it presumed that the club's perpetual lease had been validly terminated, even though the legality of that decision remained under judicial challenge.

The High Court will now consider the two lawsuits on November 25, while the restriction imposed by the coordinate bench on passing a final eviction order remains subject to further judicial directions.