New Delhi, Sep 16 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will hear on September 29 the pleas challenging the Centre's proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club for its eviction from the 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road here.

Gymkhana member Vijay Khurana and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association have filed lawsuits against the May 22 order of the Land and Development Office (L&DO) terminating the colonial-era club's perpetual lease deed and asking it to return the land by June 5 on grounds of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.

They have also filed applications seeking a stay on the June 29 show-cause notice for eviction issued to the Club's management by an estate officer of the L&DO.

Centre has earlier said it would not take any coercive action in relation to its eviction for the time being.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was Wednesday informed by the senior counsel appearing for one of the plaintiffs that the case was ready for arguments on the issue of grant of stay.

The Centre also filed its response on the main matter, contending that the lawsuits were liable to be dismissed.

The central government said members cannot restrain the enforcement of rights arising from the now-determined lease deed between the authorities and the club for the land parcel.

"Defendant No. 1 (Centre) maintains its right to resume the Suit Property under Clause 4 (of the deed) while obtaining possession through the procedure required by law and in compliance with judicial directions," the written statement said.

"The Plaintiff cannot claim a personal estate in the land, or a right to enforce the terms of an instrument to which he is not privy, merely by describing his membership privileges as a right to enjoy the Club premises," it added.

The response, filed through central government standing counsel Ashish Dixit, stated the premises situated in a sensitive and strategic area are required for defence infrastructure, public security, institutional and governance infrastructure, and public-interest projects integrated with other adjoining government lands.

These purposes are not rendered legally incompatible merely because the premises have historically accommodated a private club, the reply emphasised.

Rejecting claims of malice, the Centre also said that the pending litigation arising from the club's corporate governance was "distinct" and has no bearing on the ongoing proceedings for eviction.

In 2022, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) permitted the appointment of 15 government-nominated directors on the club's general committee after the Ministry of Corporate Affairs filed a plea alleging oppression and mismanagement in its affairs.

The Centre's written submissions further reiterated that the reliefs sought in the matter were barred under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, which completely ousts a civil court's jurisdiction.

The Centre had earlier filed a separate reply to the applications seeking a stay, asserting that the High Court has no legal power to restrain the government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana Club land after the termination of the perpetual lease for the club and issuance of a show-cause notice for eviction by the estate officer.

It submitted that under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, a civil court's jurisdiction over any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction is barred and the grant of any injunction in respect of the estate officer's action is also prohibited.

Given that the perpetual lease deed was a bilateral instrument between the Centre and the Delhi Gymkhana Club, a member – who was neither a party nor privy to the agreement – cannot independently restrain the authorities from exercising their contractual rights, the Centre had said.

Khurana has said in his lawsuit that the "vague" and "generalised" reasons of defence infrastructure and security given by the Centre were just a "sham".

The move, he claimed, was an "attempt to effect forced eviction" instead of following the due process of law.

Khurana's lawsuit is stated to be supported by more than 500 club members.

In his interim application, Khurana said the June 29 notice proceeds on "entirely erroneous and premature assumptions", which strike at the substratum of their pending lawsuit.

The application said the show-cause notice was "premature" as it wrongly presumed that the Gymkhana Club's perpetual lease was validly terminated.

It said the notice's continued operation would render the lawsuit infructuous, especially when the High Court had earlier observed that the question of valid termination would be determined at an appropriate stage.

Besides a stay order, the application sought a direction for maintaining status quo on possession, occupation and functioning of the club.

Alternatively, it sought a direction that the estate officer may not pass any final order under the Public Premises Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step. PTI ADS RT