Ambassador Hotel moves Delhi High Court against eviction notice

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Central government and the Land and Development Office (L&DO) on a plea challenging the eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act in the case related to the Sujan Singh Park area, which includes the iconic Ambassador Hotel. .Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar asked the parties to file their replies in three weeks on the plea filed by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited - the company that owns the hotel. Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog appeared for the petitioners and asked the Court to stay the proceedings. “He [Estate Officer] has not dealt with any of my submissions and said I will decide everything together. He has kept it for tomorrow (July 10). He has not allowed me to file any documents... I am faced with a situation where the order can come any day... Therefore, my lords will have to stay this [the notice]," Nandrajog said. Advocate Ashish Dixit appeared for the Central government and opposed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable. He added that nothing will happen on July 10 and the proceedings before the Estate Officer can continue. .Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited moved the Court after Estate Officer of the L&DO sent an eviction notice on June 11.It is their case that the Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and that the notice proposing eviction from the 7.58-acre Sujan Singh Park (North) must be quashed. The plot, at present, consists of the Ambassador Hotel and some flats. The company contended that the dispute over ownership and the Union government's claimed re-entry into the property in 1960 is already the subject of an appeal before the High Court, making summary eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act impermissible.According to the plea, the company has remained in uninterrupted possession of the property since 1943. It argued that the government’s effort for re-entry had been declared illegal by a trial court decree that remained in force for 17 years before being reversed by an appellate court in June this year, which is under challenge in the second appeal. The petitioner further alleged that the eviction notice was founded on the appellate judgment even though the Union government had subsequently undertaken before the High Court that the Public Premises Act proceedings would be conducted without reference to or being influenced by that judgment.