Delhi Gymkhana Club Challenges Eviction Notice Before Delhi High Court
The Delhi Gymkhana Club, through its member Vijay Khurana and the Club’s staff welfare association, has moved the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the Central government’s initiative to evict the institution from its 27.3‑acre land in Lutyens Delhi. The applications were filed in the already pending suits that contest the government’s earlier order to vacate the premises.
The Estate Officer of the Land & Development Office (L&DO) issued a show cause notice to the Club after the Central government submitted a plea seeking eviction. The notice follows the government’s contention that the Club has violated the terms of the perpetual lease granted in 1928.
Clause 4 of the lease deed expressly permits the lessor, namely the Central government, to re‑enter the premises when required for a public purpose. The government relies on this clause to justify the eviction proceedings.
In 2022 the Centre initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging that the Club had breached the lease conditions and mismanaged the property. The NCLT allowed the government’s prayer and directed the appointment of fifteen members nominated by the Centre to oversee the day‑to‑day affairs of the Club. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) subsequently upheld the NCLT’s order.
The pending suits before the High Court challenge the validity of the earlier eviction order. During the hearing of the pleas in May, the Bench, presided over by Justice Avneesh Jhingan, declined to grant any interim relief against the government’s directive. The Court noted that the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, had assured the Bench that any eviction action would be undertaken only after due notice is served.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan is scheduled to hear the fresh applications on 6 July 2026. The applications seek to restrain the implementation of the show cause notice and to obtain a declaration that the eviction move is untenable in law.
The Club’s counsel argues that the perpetual lease, granted nearly a century ago, confers a continuing right of occupation that cannot be curtailed without establishing a bona fide public purpose and following the procedural safeguards mandated by the lease agreement. They contend that the allegations of mismanagement raised before the NCLT do not automatically trigger the re‑entry clause without a fresh determination of public necessity.
The Central government, represented by the Solicitor General, maintains that the lease terms expressly allow re‑entry for public purpose and that the NCLT’s findings of lease violation and mismanagement provide a sufficient basis for invoking that provision. The government further asserts that the show cause notice complies with the requirement of prior notice before any eviction step.
The High Court’s forthcoming consideration will focus on the interpretation of Clause 4 of the lease deed, the applicability of the NCLT and NCLAT orders to the eviction dispute, and whether the procedural prerequisites for re‑entry have been satisfied. The outcome will determine whether the Club may continue to occupy the Lutyens Delhi premises or must vacate pursuant to the government’s notice.