Patiala House Court of Delhi has rejected the petition of Delhi Race Club, in which an interim stay was sought on the eviction order issued by the Central Government. The court refused to stay the 15-day eviction notice issued to the club. The estate officer had ordered Delhi Race Club to vacate the premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unlawful Occupants) Act. The club had challenged this order and sought interim relief from the court.

The court said that at present the club has not been successful in presenting such prima facie grounds on the basis of which an interim stay can be imposed on the eviction order of August 11, 2026. The court held that the club officials had failed to prove a prima facie case in their favor. Therefore the court refused to stay the 15 day eviction notice.

Lease of Race Club not renewed since 1994, Center presented its stand in court

In the matter of eviction of Delhi Race Club, the Central Government told the Patiala House Court that the lease of the club has not been renewed since 1994. The club had challenged the order to vacate the premises issued on August 11, calling it a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court said that the club was given several opportunities to present its case, but it could not file its reply as per the prescribed procedure. According to the court, the estate officer had also provided a copy of the complaint filed by the Union of India to the club. The court observed that the club was given sufficient time and opportunity to file its reply, but it did not file the reply for its own reasons. In such a situation, an interim stay on the eviction order cannot be imposed merely by claiming violation of the principles of natural justice.

Delhi Race Club is located on Race Course Road, near the Prime Minister's Residence and Delhi Golf Club. The Central Government has cited non-renewal of lease for a long time as an important ground in the eviction proceedings. In view of these circumstances, the court did not accept the club's demand for interim relief and refused to stay the 15-day eviction notice.

Application to stay eviction order rejected

Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDSJ) of Patiala House Court Pitambar Dutt has rejected the interim application of Delhi Race Club. The club had sought a stay on the government order, under which it has been directed to vacate its premises in Lutyens Delhi. This case is to Central Government vs Delhi Race Club. Before the court, the club had sought interim relief challenging the order issued by the Estate Officer on August 11, 2026. The estate officer had directed the club to vacate the premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. In the order, the club was given 15 days time. A demand was made by the club to stay the eviction order, but the court rejected the interim application. Due to this, at present the club has not got interim relief from the action of vacating the premises under the government order. Earlier during the hearing, the Central Government had said that the lease of the club has not been renewed since 1994.

Race Club has more than a century old history

Delhi Race Club is located on the Central Golf Link Road of the capital. Its location is considered very important as it is in front of the official residence of the Prime Minister. The club's history is one of the oldest in horse racing, dating back more than 100 years. The dispute that arose after the government ordered the Race Club to vacate the premises is not just a matter to property. Along with this, questions to the use of government land and old lease rights in important areas of the capital have also come to the fore.

Race Club said- eviction action is not according to proper procedure

Senior advocate Suhail Dutt, appearing for Delhi Race Club, argued in the Patiala House Court that the estate officer's August 11 eviction action was not in accordance with due legal process. The club said that despite asking for a copy of the relevant plaint, it was not provided. The club said in the court that it did not get adequate opportunity to present its case effectively. On this basis, the defense termed the eviction action as contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Also cited the old dispute of 1999

Giving another important legal argument, the club's lawyer said that the Delhi High Court has already canceled the show-cause notice issued in 1999 in an old dispute to the same property. The club argued that in such a situation, raising the same dispute again falls within the scope of the principle of 'Res Judicata'. It generally means that after a final decision on an issue has been given by a competent court, the same issue cannot be raised again in the same form between the same parties.

Government said- no renewal of lease after 1994

In the case of eviction of Delhi Race Club, the club cited the amount deposited for rent payment and lease extension in the year 2013 in support of its position. The club argued that these circumstances indicate that the lease was extended and its occupation cannot be considered completely unauthorized. However, the central government did not accept this claim of the club. On behalf of the Central Government, Central Government Standing Council (CGSC) Ashish K. Dixit told the court that there was no renewal of the club's lease after 1994. According to the government, thereafter the possession of the club was on a month-to-month rental basis. The government also argued that the club was provided with necessary documents to the case and was given several opportunities to file its reply. But the club did not use these opportunities effectively.

Race club no relief from court

Patiala House Court also did not consider the argument given by Delhi Race Club on the basis of the principle of 'Res Judicata' as a basis for granting relief. The court said that the old notice issued in the year 1999 was not issued on the basis of determining the condition of the lease or invoking the 're-entry clause' of the lease. Therefore, the court held that the current eviction action cannot be stopped automatically on the basis of the old case. An important aspect of the court's decision was to the rent payments being made by the club. The court clarified that merely continuing to pay rent even after the expiry of the lease period does not prove renewal of the lease. According to the court, acceptance of rent payment and formal renewal of the lease are two different legal situations. This difference undermined the club's argument that rental payments were an indication of the lease continuing.

Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp