Court dismisses plea seeking stay on eviction of Delhi Race Club

NEW DELHIA Delhi court on Tuesday dismissed a plea moved by the Delhi Race Club, seeking an interim stay on an eviction order issued by the central government earlier this month, observing that the club authorities failed to make a prima facie case in their favour

NEW DELHI

The order was passed by principal district and sessions judge Pitamber Dutt of the Patiala House courts. (Shutterstock)

A Delhi court on Tuesday dismissed a plea moved by the Delhi Race Club, seeking an interim stay on an eviction order issued by the central government earlier this month, observing that the club authorities failed to make a prima facie case in their favour.

The order was passed by principal district and sessions judge Pitamber Dutt of the Patiala House courts.

The court said, “I am of the considered view that appellant has failed to make a prima facie case for stay of the impugned order dated August 11, 2026 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer. Accordingly, the application filed by the appellant for interim stay is dismissed.”

The club is located on Race Course Road, near the Prime Minister’s residence and the Delhi Golf Club.

The Race Club authorities, represented by senior advocate Suhail Dutt, contended that the order passed by the estate officer was in violation of principles of natural justice, as they had not been supplied a copy of the plaint by the estate officer, that the demanded sum for the extension of lease for the club was duly deposited and hence, the lease was extended by both parties.

They argued in their plea that it had been regularly paying the use and occupation charges without default, and the occupancy could not be termed as unauthorised.

The central government’s standing counsel, Ashish Dixit, contended that no lease deed or extension of lease was done after 1994 and the occupation of the appellant in the property in question after the said year was on a month-to-month basis.

The counsel argued that the club authorities appeared before the estate officer and a copy of the plaint was supplied to them, but despite several opportunities, they failed to put forth any defence. Therefore, the counsel said, the estate officer was forced to close the right and pass an eviction order under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act.

The court, in its detailed order, dismissed the club’s contentions of not being supplied a copy of the plaint and also the club’s argument regarding payment of rent, stating the amount deposited was in fact, the net recoverable amount towards damages up to July 2013.

“It is well settled law that mere payment of rent after the expiration of the terms of the lease deed cannot be construed as renewal of the lease which has already expired,” the court said.

The court’s order came hours after the matter was heard before division bench of justice Satish Chandra Sharma and justice Nongmeikapam Singh, who granted liberty to the district judge to decide the matter without being influenced by the Delhi High Court’s earlier orders.

Through a special leave petition filed on August 13, the club was challenging the Delhi High court’s May 27 decision, allowing the continuation of eviction proceedings of the Race Club by the Centre.

On May 27, a division bench of the Delhi High Court ordered the resumption of eviction proceedings initiated by the estate officer against the 53.4-acre Delhi Race Club. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia observed that a single-judge’s April 24 order, which restrained the estate officer from proceeding with action pursuant to an April 17, 2026, show-cause notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (PP Act), was passed without assigning reasons, even for the namesake. The show-cause notice required the club to explain why an eviction order should not be passed regarding the public premises it occupied.

In the 34-page verdict, the judges noted that while the single judge discussed the respective cases of the parties, the order merely stated that the matter required consideration, given the chequered history of the litigation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, before granting interim protection without further reasoning.

The bench held that such a course was impermissible because the interim order adversely affected the Centre’s valuable statutory right under the PP Act, without recording reasons or rendering findings on the essential considerations: a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience.

The dispute dates to March 12, when the Centre initially issued a vacation notice, against which the club filed a suit that was disposed of on April 9.