Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea Challenging Gymkhana Club Eviction Notice
Court asks Union Government to respond to petitions filed by Delhi Gymkhana Club members and staff, while directing that Estate Officer proceedings be deferred until the next hearing.
The Delhi High Court has sought the Central Government’s response to petitions challenging a show-cause notice issued to the historic Delhi Gymkhana Club for its proposed eviction from its prestigious Safdarjung Road premises in the national capital. The matter is set to be heard next on July 28, 2026, giving both sides an opportunity to present their arguments.
The petitions have been filed by members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club along with its Staff Welfare Association. They challenge the legality of the eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, following the Centre’s decision to reclaim the 27.3-acre property.
During the hearing, Justice Avneesh Jhingan issued notice to the Union Government and directed it to file its response. The Court also requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that the hearing before the Estate Officer, originally scheduled for July 7, is postponed until after the High Court takes up the matter again.
The dispute stems from a show-cause notice dated June 29, 2026, issued by the Estate Officer. The notice alleges that the club’s continued occupation of the property amounts to unauthorised occupation after the expiry of its lease and asks why an eviction order should not be passed.
The Central Government has maintained that it exercised its contractual right of re-entry after the lease expired and that the land is required for public purposes, including defence infrastructure, governance facilities and other strategic projects. According to the Centre, the proposed action is in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises Act.
Appearing before the Court, the Solicitor General informed the Bench that the applications had been served only a day earlier and sought time to obtain instructions and file a comprehensive reply. Accepting the request, the High Court refrained from granting immediate interim relief but ensured that no parallel proceedings would prejudice the petitioners before the next hearing.
The litigation marks the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over one of New Delhi’s most prominent institutional properties. Earlier this year, the Centre had directed the club to vacate the premises, citing the “public purpose” clause contained in the lease deed. The club subsequently approached the High Court, which had earlier recorded the government’s assurance that any eviction would follow due process under the law.
Legal observers note that the case raises significant questions concerning the scope of government powers to resume leased public land, the procedural safeguards available under the Public Premises Act, and the balance between contractual rights of the State and the interests of long-standing institutions occupying public property. The outcome could have wider implications for similar disputes involving government-owned land across India.
