New Delhi, May 26 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief against the Union government’s move to reclaim possession of the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises in Lutyens’ Delhi.

While issuing summons in suits filed by club members and employees, a single-judge Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan declined to stay the Centre’s communication after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta assured the Delhi High Court that no forcible eviction would take place and that any action would be taken strictly in accordance with law and after prior notice.

“As of now, there is nothing on record to substantiate that action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been taken,” Justice Jhingan observed, clarifying that if the need arises, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to avail themselves of remedies in accordance with law.

Recording the statement of SG Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, the Delhi High Court said that “no further interim directions are called for” and observed that eviction, if any, would not be carried out forcibly but only by following due process.

The Delhi High Court issued summons in two civil suits — one by a club member and another by the Staff Welfare Association — and granted the Centre eight weeks to file its written statement.

During the hearing, concerns were raised that nominees appointed by the Centre to run the Delhi Gymkhana Club may act “hand in glove” with the Union government and facilitate handing over possession of the premises. However, the Delhi High Court said that such apprehensions appeared contrary to the stand taken by the club itself, noting that the governing committee had already approached authorities, raising grievances against the termination of the lease.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that even an unauthorised occupant could not be evicted without notice and contended that the Centre was attempting to invoke Clause 4 of the colonial-era perpetual lease deed to take over possession without disclosing any concrete “public purpose”.

Sibal submitted that the validity of Clause 4 itself would have to be tested on the touchstone of the Constitution and Article 300A, which protects the right to property.

In response, SG Mehta submitted that there was “no question of forceful eviction” and clarified that the Centre had only directed a “peaceful handover of possession”.

He assured the Delhi High Court that even if the club did not vacate the premises voluntarily by June 5, possession would not be taken without following due process under law.

In its order, the Delhi High Court recorded that the dispute had a long history of litigation, including proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) concerning the alleged mismanagement of the Delhi Gymkhana Club by its governing body.

It observed that the NCLT had earlier ordered the appointment of 15 nominees to the governing body, which was subsequently upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Last week, the Centre had issued the impugned notice through the Land and Development Office (L&DO), stating that the 27.3-acre property at 2, Safdarjung Road was “critically required for the strengthening and securing of Defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes”.

The communication invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed, under which the lessor reserves the right to re-enter the premises if required for a public purpose.

Established in 1913 during the colonial era, the Delhi Gymkhana Club is regarded as one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious social institutions and has long served as a hub for senior bureaucrats, diplomats, military officials and influential citizens.

The club’s current premises were developed in the early 1930s by architect Robert T. Russell, who also designed Connaught Place and the erstwhile Commander-in-Chief’s residence, later known as Teen Murti House.

The exclusive club is known to have around 5,600 permanent members and a long waiting list, with some applicants reportedly waiting for decades to secure membership.

–IANS

pds/dpb