Won’t take ‘immediate possession’ of Delhi Gymkhana Club, Centre tells High Court

THe Centre told the new delhi heights margaret court on tues that it testament not take “immediate possession” of the Delhi Gymkhana Club and that any eviction-related action following its May 22 notice directing the iconic club to vacate by June 5 will be taken only in accordance with law and after prior notice.Taking note of the Centre’s statement, the court issued summons in the suit filed by long-standing member Vijay Khurana, DGC staff welfare association, and the last elected body of the club, to the Centre and DGC but said that “no interim directions were called for” in view of the statements.During the hearing, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Centre’s standing counsel Ashish Dixit submitted before justice Avneesh Jhingan that the May 22 notice pertained to “re-entry” and termination of the lease deed through invocation of Clause 4 and did not contemplate “forcible eviction” through police action. This clause permits the lessor to re-enter the premises, wholly or partly, if required for a “public purpose”.On May 22, the Centre directed the club to hand over its premises at 2, Safdarjung Road to the Land and Development Office (L&DO) by June 5, invoking a public purpose clause in the original lease deed. The order stated the property is located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and is required to strengthen defence infrastructure and serve public security needs.Mehta argued that any action would be taken only after following due process of law, including issuance of prior notice. He further contended that the apprehensions raised by the plaintiffs, including Vijay Khurana, DGC Staff Welfare Association and the last elected body of the club, that the club’s governing body, comprising Centre-appointed nominees, might hand over possession of the premises, were “baseless”. He also said that the Centre “might offer” an alternative site to the club.Also Read: Harsh Goenka questions Mumbai’s Breach Candy Club amid Delhi Gymkhana Club row: 'No Indian can be on...'The law officer pointed out that the governing committee itself had already approached the authorities through a May 25 letter, raising grievances against the May 22 notice.“Taking into account the summons have been issued, and in view of the statement made by the SG no further interim directions are called for and at the cost of repetition, the statement is to the effect that the eviction, if so will be as per law following a prior notice,” justice Jhingan said in the order.Khurana’s lawyer, senior advocate AM Singhvi, argued that the May 22 notice was vague, failed to demonstrate any concrete public purpose and, in fact, contained contradictory grounds. He contended that the action had been taken without prior notice and was vitiated by legal mala fides.Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the DGC Staff Welfare Association, submitted that there was no allegation of any violation of the lease deed by the club. He further expressed apprehension that since the club was being administered by Centre-appointed members, there was a possibility that possession of the premises could be handed over.Appearing for the club’s last elected governing body, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that even in cases involving unauthorised occupants, eviction must follow the procedure prescribed by law and be preceded by notice, which, according to him, was absent in the present case.In its order, the judge said that the issue pertaining the validity of clause 4 of the lease deed and if the May 22 notice was in consonance with clause 4 and the determination if the same was in view of “public purpose” need not be dilated at this stage since it would impact the suit’s merit.The judge observed that, at this stage, the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the absence of prior notice for eviction and termination of the lease deed did not survive in view of the submissions made by Mehta. The court further noted that the plaintiffs’ apprehension that the governing committee might act in concert to hand over possession of the premises stood addressed by the SG’s statement that the governing body had itself approached the authorities raising grievances against the May 22 communication, a position also affirmed by counsel appearing for the club.“The issue with regards to the validity of clause 4 and whether the impugned communication is in consonance with clause 4, and the determination is for a public purpose need not be dilated at this stage as it would impact the merits of the suit, and another aspect is that there is no prayer wherein the validity of clause 4 has been challenged. The contention that there has to be a prior notice before eviction and for termination of the lease deed, suffice to say that after the statement given by, the issue of prior notice before eviction does not survive at this stage at least,” the court said in its order.It added, “So far as the requirement for prior notice of the termination of the perpetual lease deed, will be taken care of at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The apprehension of the plaintiff and the contention that the governing committee may act hand in glove to give the possession is met by the factual aspect stated by SG that the governing body has already approached the authorities raising grievances against the communication, and the same is taken by the counsel for the club.”The suit would be next heard on July 28.