Daily
250 words
6/10
Rating

29 July 2026

Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction dispute

The dispute involves the interpretation of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and raises significant questions regarding the separation of powers and the jurisdiction of civil courts versus executive authorities.

1 min read Day 4 of 5 1 questions 1 prelims

Notes

  • The Centre has challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to stay eviction proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club.
  • The dispute arises from the Centre's decision to terminate the club's perpetual lease for the purpose of defence infrastructure and security requirements.
  • The Centre cites Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as the legal basis for its position.
  • Section 15 establishes a two-fold bar: it excludes civil courts from jurisdiction over eviction proceedings from public premises and prohibits the granting of injunctions against actions taken by the Estate Officer.
  • The matter is currently pending before the Delhi High Court, with the next hearing scheduled for September 3.

Part of a longer story

This is day 4 of 5 in Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction dispute, which has been running since 2 July 2026. Reading it whole is usually worth more than reading today alone — the exam asks how something developed.

Questions

  1. Examine the scope and limitations of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in the context of judicial intervention and the jurisdiction of civil courts. 150 words
    Attempt this — 150 words in 8 min
    0 / 150 words 8:00

Prelims

  1. Which of the following best describes the 'two-fold' bar under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?