Delhi court rejects Delhi Race Club's plea against government order to vacate its Lutyens' Delhi premises

A Delhi court on Tuesday refused to stay the government order of August 11 directing Delhi Race Club to vacate its Lutyens Delhi Premises in 15 days. 

Delhi Race Club is a century-old horse-racing institution located on Central Golf Link Road opposite the Prime Minister's House. 

Principal District & Sessions Judge (PDSJ) Pitamber Dutt of the Patiala House Courts dismissed the application filed by the Club seeking interim stay of the eviction order passed against it by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

“In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that appellant has failed to make a prima facie case for stay of the impugned order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer in case No.ESO/11/3(1)/2026 titled as Union of India Vs. Delhi Race Club. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant/appellant for interim stay is dismissed,” the Court said. 

Appearing for the Club, Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt had argued that the Estate Officer's order dated August 11 violated principles of natural justice, as the Club had not been supplied a copy of the plaint despite repeated requests. 

He also contended that the proceedings were barred by res judicata -- a legal principle that means a matter has been judged -- since an earlier show cause notice from 1999 had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. 

Dutt further said that continued payment of rent and a lease-extension deposit made in 2013 amounted to renewal of the lease.

Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish K Dixit appeared for the government and stated that no lease had been renewed after 1994. 

He said that the Club's occupation since then was on a month-to-month basis, and that the Estate Officer had in fact supplied the plaint and granted multiple opportunities to file a reply, which the Club failed to do.

After considering the arguments and the Estate Officer's record, the Court found that the order dated April 27, 2026, recorded that the plaint had been supplied and that the Club's own representative had signed that order sheet without objection. 

The court also rejected the res judicata argument, noting the earlier notice had been issued without determining the lease or invoking the re-entry clause. Judge Pitamber Dutt held that mere payment of rent after expiry of a lease term does not amount to renewal.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Club failed to establish a prima facie case and, therefore, it dismissed the stay application.