The Centre on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that it has no legal authority to restrain the government from proceeding with the takeover of the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises after the termination of the club’s perpetual lease and the issuance of a show-cause notice for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.The submission came in response to an application filed by Delhi Gymkhana Club member Vijay Khurana, who has sought a stay on the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer. The Centre argued that the Public Premises Act provides its own adjudicatory and appellate mechanism and expressly bars civil courts from granting injunctions against proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer.Hearing the matter, Justice Avneesh Jhingan listed Khurana’s suit, along with a similar plea filed by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, for September 3, after senior counsel appearing for the petitioners said the Centre’s reply had been received only late on Monday night and time was needed to file a rejoinder.When the petitioners sought clarification on whether the Centre’s earlier assurance that the hearing before the Estate Officer would remain adjourned would continue in the meantime, the court responded, “Obviously”.In its reply, the Centre maintained that Khurana’s application was legally untenable as the Estate Officer’s authority to issue the notice could not be questioned at this stage. It said the appropriate course for the petitioner was to participate in the proceedings before the Estate Officer and raise all objections there, including the challenge to the validity of the lease termination.According to the Centre, the perpetual lease executed on February 28, 1928, was validly terminated through a notice dated May 22, 2026, under the terms of the agreement. It argued that once the lease stood determined, the club’s continued occupation ceased to be authorised under the Public Premises Act. Any order restraining the Estate Officer from continuing the eviction proceedings, it said, would interfere with a statutory right vested in the government.The Centre also rejected the argument that the move amounted to compulsory acquisition. It said the lease itself clearly reserved the government’s right to terminate the agreement and re-enter the premises for a public purpose. It further argued that Khurana, being only a club member and not a party to the lease agreement, had no independent legal right to restrain the government from exercising its contractual powers.The government also opposed the demand for disclosure of reasons behind the decision to reclaim the land, saying it was not for a club member with no independent stake in the public project to seek details relating to defence and security considerations at this stage. It added that it was prepared to fulfil its compensation obligations under the lease deed after taking possession of the property.An identical reply was filed in response to the application moved by the club’s staff association seeking similar relief.The dispute began after the Land and Development Office terminated the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease on May 22 and directed it to hand over the 27.3 acre property by June 5, citing the need to strengthen and secure defence infrastructure. On June 29, the Estate Officer issued a show-cause notice asking the club and all occupants to explain why eviction proceedings should not be initiated under the Public Premises Act.The latest applications before the High Court challenge that notice. Khurana has argued that the reasons cited by the Centre for taking over the land are vague and merely a pretext for a forced eviction. Supported by more than 500 club members, he has contended that the show cause notice is premature as it assumes the lease has been validly terminated even though that issue remains under challenge before the High Court.The application seeks a stay on the notice and maintenance of status quo over the possession, occupation and functioning of the club. In the alternative, it requests that the Estate Officer be restrained from passing any final order or taking coercive steps until the High Court decides the legality of the lease termination. Meanwhile, the petitioners have also sought permission to participate in the proceedings before the Estate Officer while pursuing their challenge before the High Court.