A Delhi Court docket on Tuesday (August 25) refused to remain an eviction order issued to Delhi Race Membership by the Property Officer, observing that regardless of ample alternatives granted to the membership to current its case it failed to take action.
The court docket noticed that not solely did the Property officer provide a replica of the plaint filed by the respondent Union of India to the appellant Membership, but additionally granted enough alternatives to the Membership to file its reply which it didn’t file for “causes greatest identified” to it.
Principal District & Classes Choose Pitamber Dutt, Patiala Home Courts in his order stated:
“Perusal of the report of the Property Officer clearly exhibits that the Property Officer had afforded greater than enough alternatives to the appellant/respondent however they didn’t submit their reply and proof. The appellant/respondent did not submit any reply resulting from which the Property Officer was constrained to shut their proper and reserved the matter for orders“
The senior counsel showing for the Membership contended that precept of pure justice has been violated because the copy of the plaint was not provided to the appellant by the Property Officer.
The court docket nevertheless rejected the rivalry noting that within the order dated 27.04.2026, the Property Officer has particularly talked about that the copy of the plaint was provided to the appellant.
“The stated order sheet was signed by the Col. S.Okay. Bakshi, Secretary of appellant and authorized consultant. Thereafter on not one of the dates, the appellant made any request to the Property Officer that duplicate of the plaint was not provided.All these details clearly exhibits that the appellant was duly provided the copy of plaint. The appellant, nevertheless, did not put their reply and proof earlier than the Property Officer, regardless of granting ample alternative” the court docket stated.
Earlier than submitting continuing U/s.5 of Public Premises Act earlier than Property Officer, the respondent had issued a discover dated 12.03.2026 asking the Membership to vacate the land and hand over the vacant and peaceable possession of the complete premises to the Land and Improvement Workplace inside a interval of 15 days failing which Authorities of India shall be constrained to provoke acceptable proceedings for eviction and restoration of possession of the stated land in accordance with regulation.
This discover of re-entry was duly served upon the appellant, the court docket stated. The Membership in the meantime filed a civil swimsuit in opposition to this discover earlier than the Delhi Excessive Court docket which initially granted interim safety.
Therein the Counsel showing for the respondent made a assertion earlier than the excessive court docket that they shall not dispossesses the Membership with out due strategy of regulation. In view of this submission, the swimsuit was disposed of on 09.04.2026.
After that, respondent Union filed a plaint earlier than the Property Officer whereby present trigger discover was served upon the Membership; however, the court docket stated, regardless of service of present trigger discover, the Membership did not contest the proceedings and did not file reply.
It thus rejected the Membership’s rivalry that the present trigger discover of the continuing initiated by the Property Officer is barred by res judicata.
With respect to rivalry on fee of lease the court docket stated:
“It’s related to say that after 1994, no doc was issued by the respondent renewing the lease past 1994. The appellant has contended that they’ve been making the fee of the lease with none default, subsequently, they can’t be termed as unauthorized occupant. It’s nicely settled regulation that mere fee of lease after the expiration of the phrases of the lease deed can’t be construed as renewal of the lease which has already expired…
The appellant has thus did not make out any prima facie case for keep of the impugned order dated 11.08.2026. In view of the above details and circumstances, I’m of the thought of view that appellant has did not make a prima facie case for keep of the impugned order dated 11.08.2026 handed by the Ld. Property Officer in case No.ESO/11/3 (1) /2026 titled as Union of India Vs. Delhi Race Membership. Accordingly, the appliance filed by the applicant/appellant for interim keep is dismissed“
The court docket dismissed the interim utility for keep of the order and has listed the principle attraction for disposal on September 26.
Case title: Delhi Race Membership (1940) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
PPA No.19/2026
Look:
Sh. Suhail Dutt, Ld. Sr. Advocate with Sh. Azhar Alam and Sh. Sankalp Goswami, Ld. Counsels for the appellant.
Sh. Ashish Okay. Dixit, Ld. C.G.S.C. with Sh. Umar Hashmi, Sh. Ayush Kumar, Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Sh. Gaurav and Sh. Suchit Goyal, Ld. Counsels for the respondents.
