The Principal District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, at Patiala House Courts on August 25, 2026, dismissed Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.’s application seeking interim stay against an Estate Officer’s eviction order dated August 11, 2026.
The order was passed in PPA No. 19/2026, after the court took up the matter earlier than scheduled following liberty granted by the Supreme Court on the same day. The Supreme Court’s latest-orders listing also records the Delhi Race Club matter in SLP (C) No. 29238/2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns the Delhi Race Club’s occupation of public premises. Proceedings under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated before the Estate Officer.
The Club challenged the August 11 order and sought a stay, arguing that it had a strong prima facie case. Its counsel contended that the proceedings violated natural justice because a copy of the plaint had allegedly not been supplied. The Club also relied on an earlier 1999 show-cause notice that had been quashed and argued that the lease had effectively continued because payments were made.
The government opposed the stay, maintaining that the lease had not been renewed after 1994 and that the Club had received the plaint and several opportunities to submit its defence.
Earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court had also involved the Club’s challenge to eviction-related action. In April 2026, the High Court had directed that the Estate Officer not proceed with an earlier show-cause notice, while the Delhi High Court Division Bench subsequently set aside that interim protection in May 2026.
Court’s Observations
The Patiala House Court examined the Estate Officer’s record and found that the Club had been given repeated opportunities to file its reply and evidence. The record showed adjournments on several dates, but no reply was ultimately filed.
The court also rejected the argument that the plaint had not been supplied. It noted that the April 27, 2026 order specifically recorded that the plaint had been supplied and was signed by the Club’s representative.
On the lease issue, the court noted that no document showed renewal after 1994. It held that payment of rent after expiry of a lease, by itself, cannot establish renewal.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Development Authority v. Anand Raj Agencies Private Limited, observing:
“There cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time.”
The court also found that the Rs. 3,48,82,723 payment relied upon by the Club was towards recoverable damages, rather than future rent for extending the lease.
Decision
The court concluded that the Club had failed to establish a prima facie case for staying the Estate Officer’s August 11, 2026 order.
Accordingly, the application seeking interim stay was dismissed.
The main appeal was directed to be listed for disposal on September 26, 2026.
-300x169.webp)
