High Court seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging Delhi Gymkhana Club’s eviction
On May 22, the government directed the club to vacate the premises saying that it was needed for ‘strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure’.
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Union government’s response on two petitions against the government’s eviction orders directing the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its premises on Safdarjung Road, Live Law reported.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 28.
The Delhi Gymkhana Club is one of the national capital’s oldest and most exclusive social and sporting clubs, frequented by diplomats, bureaucrats and military officers, amongst others. It is located near the prime minister’s official residence and other high-security installations.
On May 22, the Land and Development Office directed the club to vacate and hand over its premises to the Union government, saying that it was required for “strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure”, governance facilities and other “vital public security purposes”.
The club had moved the Delhi High Court against the order on May 25.
The next day, the court refused to grant interim relief to the club. However, it issued summons on the suits filed by the members and employees of the club against the Union government’s order.
This came after the Centre informed the Bench that any eviction action would be taken only after due notice.
In the May 22 order, the Centre said that the land had originally been leased for maintaining a social and sporting club.
The Land and Development Office, which functions under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, had invoked clause 4 of the lease deed, which allows the lessor to re-enter the premises if the land is required for a public purpose.
The government stated that when such action is taken, the entire plot, along with all buildings, structures, lawns and fittings, would vest in the President of India.
On June 29, the Centre also sent the club a show-cause notice asking it to explain why it should not be evicted.
In the June notice, the Centre stated that the club’s continued occupation of the property is “unauthorised” after the termination of its lease on May 22.
The premises in question “constitute valuable public premises vested in the Union of India and the government is under an obligation to regulate, protect and utilise such public property in accordance with public interest and public purpose”.
Edited by Tanya Shrivastava.