The Center told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it would not take “immediate possession” of the Delhi Gymkhana Club and that any action related to eviction after the May 22 notice directing the popular club to vacate by June 5 would be taken only in accordance with law and after prior notice.
Taking into account the Centre’s statement, the court issued summons in the suit filed by long-time member Vijay Khurana, DGC Employees Welfare Association, the last elected body of the club, to the Center and the DGC, but said “no interim directions have been sought” in view of the statements.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Standing Counsel for the Center Ashish Dixit submitted before Justice Avneesh Jhingan that the May 22 notice was for “re-entry” and termination of the tenancy agreement by invoking Section 4 and did not contemplate “forced eviction” through police action. This condition allows the lessor to re-enter the building, in whole or in part, if necessary for “general purposes.”
On May 22, the Center directed the club to hand over its premises at 2, Safdarjung Road to the Land and Development Office (L&DO) by June 5, citing the public benefit clause in the original lease agreement. The order said the property is located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and is needed to enhance defense infrastructure and serve public security needs.
Mehta said any action would be taken only after following due process, including issuing advance notice. He also asserted that concerns raised by the plaintiffs, including Vijay Khurana, DGC Employees Welfare Association and the club’s last elected body, that the club’s governing body, which includes Centre-appointed candidates, might hand over possession of the building, were “baseless”. He also said the center “may offer” an alternative location for the club.
The legal officer noted that the same management committee had already contacted the authorities through a letter dated May 25, raising grievances against the May 22 notice.
“Taking into account the issuance of summons, and in view of the statement made by the Secretary General, no further interim directions have been called for and on account of repetition, the statement is that the eviction, if so, will be in accordance with law after prior notice,” Justice Jhingan said in the order.
Khurana’s counsel, senior advocate AM Singhvi, said the May 22 notice was vague, failed to establish any concrete public purpose and, in fact, contained contradictory reasons. He stressed that the action was taken without warning and was annulled due to legal bad faith.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the DGC Employees Welfare Association, maintained that there was no allegation of any violation of the lease agreement by the club. He further expressed concerns that since the club is run by members appointed by the Centre, possession of the building is likely to be handed over.
While appearing before the club’s last elected governing body, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that even in cases involving unauthorized occupants, eviction must follow the procedure laid down by law and be preceded by notice, which, according to him, was absent in this case.
In his order, the judge said the question of the validity of clause 4 of the lease and whether the May 22 notice was compatible with clause 4 and the determination of whether that was so in light of the “public purpose” did not need to be expanded at this stage as it would affect the merits of the claim.
The judge noted that at this stage, the plaintiffs’ claim of lack of prior notice of eviction and termination of the lease did not hold up in light of the submissions made by Mehta. The court also noted that the Claimants’ concerns that the Managing Committee might act in concert to hand over possession of the building were addressed by the Secretary-General’s statement that the Managing Body had itself contacted the authorities to raise complaints against the May 22 communication, a position also confirmed by the lawyer representing the club.
“The question as to the validity of Clause 4 and whether the impugned communication is in accordance with Clause 4 and the decision is for a general purpose need not be enlarged at this stage as it would affect the merits of the suit, and another aspect is that there is no prayer in which the validity of Clause 4 has been impugned. It is sufficient to say that there must be advance notice before eviction and termination of the tenancy, to say that after the statement the court said in its order: “since the question of advance notice before eviction still exists at this stage at least.”
He added: “Insofar as attention is paid to the requirement of prior notification of the termination of a permanent lease, at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The arrest of the plaintiff and the allegation that the Administrative Committee may act in tandem to grant possession is offset by the factual aspect stated by the General Secretary that the Administrative Body has already contacted the authorities to raise grievances against the communication, and the same is taken by the club’s lawyers.”
The case is scheduled to be heard on July 28.
