Prateek Tanmay
A Delhi Gymkhana Club member Monday moved the Delhi High Court against the Centre’s order directing the elite institution to vacate its 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5 for defence and security-related purposes. The suit was mentioned before the HC through senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, seeking its urgent listing and will be heard on May 26 by Justice Avneesh Jhingan.
Earlier this month, the institution had also approached the High Court opposing a steep revision in its ground rent. The club said its annual rent had risen from Rs 409.50 to over Rs 4.10 crore in 2023, and was further increased to more than Rs 47.59 crore in April 2026.
The Club had sought that the HC issue directions to quash and set aside several notices issued by the Land And Development Officer of the Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs (MoHUA) since 2023 — with the latest issued on April 16 this year — over raised ground rent and other demands by the government.
The Club has occupied and maintained the premises at 2, Safdarjung Road, since 1927 under a perpetual lease deed which fixed the annual ground rent at Rs 15 per acre, thus totalling to Rs 409.50 as rent for the entire premises.
According to the pending petition, the Club has admitted that there have been “certain instances of compoundable breaches of the Lease Deed, which have, over the years, been regularised by (MoHUA) by payment of regularisation charges by the Club”.
On December 13, 2023, the Club claimed that “for the first time in the over 90-year history of the lease,” the L&DO issued a letter to revise the annual ground rent in respect of the land, retrospectively, with effect from April 1, 2018, on the basis of “prevailing land rates for institutional properties”.
The revised demand by the government calculated ground rent of Rs 4.09 crore for the covered area of 3.176 acres and another Rs 1.32 lakh for the remaining open area of 24.124 acres as licence fee.
Story continues below this ad
Opposing this hike, the Club pointed out that the revised figure is “10,000 times the original rent,” which stood at Rs 409.50.
It flagged various lacuna, including lack of opportunity of hearing, that revised rents cannot apply retrospectively as per the Centre’s own 1983 office order, and that “the demand was practically incapable of being paid” owing to the financial condition of the Club. It has been under the management of MCA-nominated directors owing to an National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order.
As communications continued between the Centre and the Club, on September 11, 2025, the MoHUA served a notice to the Club to “remedy the breaches before exercising re-entry powers for unauthorised construction/misuse of encroachment, enlisting the breaches noticed by the Inspection Officer during inspection of the premises.
The next day, MoHUA raised a demand of Rs 32.88 crore, where it calculated the revised ground rent from April 1, 2018, to January 2026 at Rs 32.02 crore, and an interest of Rs 86.41 lakh, for the period December 13, 2023, to September 30, 2025.
Story continues below this ad
The communication from MoHUA had added that dues for breaches found during departmental inspections were being separately assessed and a further demand in respect of them would be issued soon.
Then, on April 16, the Ministry issued a notice to the club, escalating the total demand to Rs 47.59 crore. The Club was initially directed to pay the amount within a week before an extension was granted till May 7.
The MoHUA also pointed out in its April 16 notice that it will communicate charges to be paid separately as subletting charges for office space leased to PNB.
The Club had then moved the High Court on May 5 and 7.
Story continues below this ad
At the time, Justice Purushaindra Kaurav noted that “there does not seem to be any final determination to the demand”. Upon the Centre’s submission that the Club had not furnished all details sought, the judge had directed the Club to appear before the L&DO for a joint meeting.
On May 14, the Club had told the court that “some endeavours are being made to amicably resolve the dispute”, which then led the court to defer the hearing to July 21.
