The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (May 26, 2026) declined to grant interim relief to members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club who had challenged the Central government’s direction asking the club to vacate its 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan, however, recorded Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta’s assurance that any eviction would be carried out only “in accordance with procedure established by law” and after prior notice.

Centre asks Delhi Gymkhana Club to hand over premises by June 5

“In view of the statements made by the SG, no further interim directions are called for. The statement is to the effect that the eviction, if so, will be done following a prior notice,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing multiple suits, including one filed by club member Vijay Khurana and another by the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, challenging the Centre’s order directing the club to hand over possession of the premises by June 5. The last elected body of the club, which was replaced by a 15-member governing committee appointed by the Centre, also moved a separate plea in the matter.

Also read:NCLAT suspends Gymkhana’s board, halts new membership

The Centre has asked the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate the land granted to the club on a perpetual lease, stating that it was required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.

Appearing for Mr. Khurana, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that no prior notice had been issued before the government’s May 22 communication and contended that the action suffered from “legal mala fides”. He submitted that since the club was presently being managed by nominees of the Union government, the members had been compelled to approach the Court to safeguard the interests of the club.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the last elected body of the club, argued that even in the case of an unauthorised occupant, the prescribed legal procedure had to be followed. He contended that any action for eviction had to be preceded by a notice, which was absent in the present case.

The petitioners also challenged the public purpose cited by the Centre in its May 22 communication on the ground that it had not been adequately spelt out or demonstrated in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioners further argued that there had been no violation of the lease deed by the club.

Responding to the submissions, SG Mehta clarified that the communication issued by the government pertained to “re-entry and termination of the perpetual lease deed and not forcible eviction”. He submitted that any eviction proceedings, if initiated, would be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and only after issuance of notice.

When the Court specifically asked whether the Centre would refrain from taking possession on June 5, Mr. Mehta responded: “We will not take possession except as per the procedure established by law.” He further informed the Court that the government-appointed governing committee had itself written to the authorities opposing the May 22 communication.

The Court noted the apprehension expressed by club members that the club’s current governing committee would act hand-in-glove with the government to hand over possession of the premises, stood addressed in light of the SG’s statement that the governing body had already approached the authorities against the communication.

“As on date, there is nothing on record to substantiate that action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been taken and in case the need so arises, the plaintiffs can avail remedies in accordance with law,” the Court said as it posted the case for further hearing in July.