‘No forcible eviction’: Delhi High Court records Centre’s stand on Gymkhana Club

Court: The statement is to the effect that for eviction, if so to be done would be in accordance with law with prior notice

Court: The locus standi of the party would be determined at the appropriate stage..Taking into account the summons in the main suit has been issued and accepted by defendants in view of the statement made by the SG no further directions are called for

Court: Another aspect is that there is no prayer in either of the suits wherein the validity of the clause four is under challenge. 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 for a prior notice before eviction does not survive at this stage, at least. So far as the requirement of a prior notice for termination of the perpetual lease deed would be taken care at an appropriate stage in the proceedings. The apprehension of the plaintiffs and the contention that the governing committee of the club may act hand in glove with government to hand over the possession is met by the factual aspect stated by SG governing body approached the the authorities raising grievance against the impugned communication and to same effect is the stand taken by different counsel for defendant for party of the club. The reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Express supra, that there cannot be, provisions of Public Premises Act cannot be resorted to as the club is not unauthorized occupant at this stage does not enhance the case of the applicant. The issue is premature and presumptive. As on date there is nothing on record to substantiate that the action under the PPS act has been taken and in case need arises the plaintiffs can avail remedies in accordance with law

Court records SG Mehta's submissions: The impugned communication is vis-a-vis re-entry and termination of perpetual lease deed by invoking clause 4 of lease deed. It is stated that the apprehension of the counsel for the plaintiffs is baseless rather the governing committee of the club has already approached the authorities against the impugned communication. It is stated that the impugned communication is for termination for perpetual lease deed and for reentry not for the forceable eviction for which the proceedings in accordance with law after issuing of notice shall be undertaken

Court: Submission is that there is no allegation of violation of lease deed

Court: The public purpose stated in the impugned communication is challenged for not having been clearly spelled out or demonstrated

Court: Issue summons, written statement to be filed within 8 weeks

Court starts dictating order

SG Mehta: My submission is that there cant be any eviction by police force or anything of that nature. It will have to be by the procedure established by law

Court: Mr Mehta, Are you ready to say that whatever this impugned communication is only for re-entry purposes and not for eviction purposes.

SG Mehta: Yes

SG Mehta: They tried to create a ghost and very unsuccessfully made an attempt to kill it

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta: The lessor which is to exercise the right of re-entry, that right can only be exercised by way of filing of a suit

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta begins submission for staff welfare assocation of the Delhi Gymkhana club.

Singhvi: This is a strong prima facie case on the ground of no notice

Court: You are saying that this clause is violative of article 14, you can challenge its validity in sui

Sibal: Here I am authorised occupant and not given notice

Sibal: You can't say I can enter and then I will give you a show cause notice

Sibal: Even an unauthorised occupant has to be proceeded under the Public Premises Act with notice. I am not unauthorised occupant

Sibal: I am for the last elected body.

SG Mehta: That was long back.

Court: How can the last elected body come to court?

Sibal: As a derivative suit, I can file it. I will show you the judgment.

Sibal is appearing for the elected body of the Delhi Gymkhana club

Sibal: All clauses of doucment has to be tested on the touchstone of our constitution...Any clause which allows govt or the imperial power to enter into a premises and take it is anathema to the fundamentals of our constitution

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal begins arguments

Singhvi: Acting in accordance with law is useless because your lordships is hearing in July. A club running for 100 years can surely wait till July

Singhvi to SG Mehta: You are entitled to make sarcastic comments when you have the power of the government behind you to take over a club

SG Mehta: You may not argue 7 judgments unless you’re charging per minute.

Singhvi: You may not make sarcastic comments

SG Mehta: Facts of that case are different

Singhvi refers to judgment in Express newspaper case

Court: The question at this stage is whether it is an order or a notice, secondly whether it is called re-entry in a perpetual lease 

Singhvi refers to judgments

Singhvi refers to judgments

SG Mehta: We will not take possession except in accordance with law...it cannot be on 5th because notice will have to be issued 

Court: Mr Singhvi's apprehension is that Delhi Gymkhana is being managed by a committee by the Centre.

Singhvi: We are members, it is a non-profit company.

Court: What is your grievance? Your members is not in dispute?

Singhvi: June 5 is the date for voluntarily handing over.

Court: Can we record your statement?

SG Mehta: Yes

SG Mehta: It’s not that police will rush in, it will have to be taken over as per law

SG Mehta: June 5 we have given option to vacate on its own.

Court: You can say these things in your written statements

SG Tushar Mehta: Govt can offer an alternative plot of land where they can shift

Court asks Centre for its stand

SG Tushar Mehta is appearing for Centre

Abhishek Manu Singhvi reads relevant documents

Hearing begins