GK’s famous club directed to vacate premises

The Supreme Court has dismissed two separate petitions — filed by the club members and the club — against a Delhi High Court verdict directing it to vacate the premises for non-payment of rent.

Greater Kailash Part I’s only club, the 45-year-old South Delhi Club, is all set to shut shop.

HT Image

The Supreme Court has dismissed two separate petitions — filed by the club members and the club — against a Delhi High Court verdict directing it to vacate the premises for non-payment of rent.

Upholding the January 2009 verdict of the High Court, a bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly on Wednesday said: “In our opinion the club is not entitled to any equitable relief…having regard to its conduct.”

It also directed the club to pay within four weeks Rs 25,000 as cost of litigation to Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, which let out the premises to the club from where it was run since November 1965.

DLF chairman K.P. Singh, his family members and employees run the trust. Besides Singh, other trustees included his wife Indira, Rajiv Singh, Renuka Talwar and director T.C. Goyal.

After the verdict, senior counsel Ravi Shankar Prasad and advocate Sandeep Narain requested the court on behalf of the club members to give more time to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the trust. The court would decide on this issue on Friday.

Acting on a petition filed by the club members, the apex court had in April last year stayed the High Court order asking the club management to vacate and hand over possession to the trust.

The High Court had passed eviction orders on the ground that the club failed to comply with the lease deed condition of paying the lease money between September 1996 and June 1998.

According to the petitioners, the club was developed in accordance with the sanctioned plans.

During the proceedings, the club members alleged that one of its ordinary members had appeared as the club’s secretary and connived with DLF to allow the latter’s eviction suit against the club.

The petitioner members said the judgment was delivered without recording of any evidence and the said ordinary member washed his hands off the litigation after his statements made on behalf of the club were used by the HC to pass the eviction order. After the member’s petition, the club also filed a petition against the eviction order.

But the SC said the club was “very negligent” in pursuing the case and adopted “dilatory tactics” in prolonging the litigation.