HC has no jurisdiction to stay eviction of Gymkhana Club: Centre
The Centre told the Delhi High Court that Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bars the court from staying eviction actions in public-premises disputes.
- Delhi Gymkhana Club members challenged eviction proceedings connected to the club’s land and lease.
- Section 15 bars civil courts from handling certain eviction disputes about public premises and limits court injunctions against actions by the Estate Officer.
- Estate Officer is the authority that conducts eviction-related actions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
- A party seeking a stay of eviction can ask the Delhi High Court for interim relief, but the Centre’s stand is that Section 15 bars the court’s jurisdiction.
What happened (Delhi High Court and Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction)
The Government of India (the “Centre”) opposed a plea in the Delhi High Court seeking a stay of eviction proceedings involving the Delhi Gymkhana Club. The Centre’s position was that the High Court should not entertain the application because Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bars the grant of injunctions and limits court jurisdiction in eviction matters connected with public premises.
The dispute is tied to an eviction process launched after the Centre decided to terminate the Delhi Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease.
UPSC can frame the issue around how Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act affects court power to entertain injunction or stay requests tied to eviction proceedings run by the Estate Officer.
Related dispatches
