The Central government has told the Delhi High Court that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain pleas seeking a stay on eviction proceedings initiated against the Delhi Gymkhana Club. .It has been stated that Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 expressly bars any court from entertaining cases in relation to eviction proceedings or granting an injunction against action taken by an Estate Officer.“The bar is twofold: (i) it ousts civil court jurisdiction over any suit or proceeding “in respect of the eviction” of a person alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of public premises; and (ii) it independently prohibits the grant of any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Estate Officer. The present Application, which seeks precisely such an injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding with the SCN, falls squarely within the express prohibition of Section 15,” the government reply filed through Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit stated. .The government has filed the reply after two applications were filed by Gymkhana member Vijay Khurana and the club’s staff welfare association seeking a stay on the show cause notice issued on June 29. The notice was issued after the Central government filed a plea seeking the Club's eviction. Khurana and the Gymkhana staff welfare association filed the applications against the eviction notice in their already pending suits against the government's direction to the Club to vacate the premises.Justice Avneesh Jhingan heard the matters today. He was informed by Khurana's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singh, that they received the government's reply late last night and need time to respond.The Court has now listed the case for further proceedings on September 3..Meanwhile, the government, in its reply, also argued that the Estate Officer, not the civil court, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the questions raised in the applications filed by Khurana and the staff welfare. The Court was further told that interim stays granted against eviction notices have been set aside by the higher court.“The entirety of the Applicant’s substantive grievance validity of Clause 4 termination, genuineness of “public purpose,” absence of stated compensation falls squarely within this exclusive statutory domain. The civil suit is not the appropriate forum to pre-empt that determination, nor can an interim injunction be used to achieve indirectly what the substantive law does not permit directly,” the government argued. It also rejected the claim that the eviction notice "prejudges" the outcome and renders any hearing "illusory".“The proper remedy for the grievance sought to be litigated by injunction is participation in the hearing before the Estate Officer itself, where all grounds, including the challenge to the validity of determination, may be raised and must be considered,” the reply underscored. .The land on which the club functions was given to it on a perpetual lease in the year 1928. Clause 4 of the lease deed provides that the premises can be re-entered upon by the lessor (Central government) if required for public purpose.In 2022, the Centre initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the club for violation of the terms of the lease deed and mismanagement. The NCLT allowed the prayer and ordered the appointment of 15 members to be nominated by the Centre for running the day-to-day business of the Club.The NCLAT later upheld this order.
