Delhi HC Dismisses Plea To Reopen 100-Years-Old Roshanara Club Sealed By DDA

RCL was established in the year 1922, and was since operating on the land allotted to them under lease deeds executed by the Secretary of State for India and the DDA, as renewed from time to time. However, subsequent to the lapse of the extended lease on December 31, 2017, an eviction notice was issued by the DDA on April 12, 2023.

Accordingly, noting DDA’s submission that they are in the process of finalizing a scheme for the smooth running of the club at an early date, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “In the considered opinion of this Court, as this Court is already dealing with the issue of running the club and the writ petition is also pending on the subject, no interim order can be granted in the present writ petition”.

Advocate Nitin Dayal for the petitioner, and CGSC Sandeep Kr. Mahapatra for the respondent- the Estate Officer.

The plea inter alia challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 as ultra virus to the Constitution of India. Furthermore, sought a declaration that the sealing/locking the premises of the Club and stopping the activities at 05:00 AM - 06:00 AM (before sun rise) in the morning (before sunrise) was void ab-initio since it was in direct contravention of rule 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The plea also sought to quash the draft policy to run the Club for being void ab-initio as the same is hit by the provisions of Articles 13-15, 19, 21 and 301-A of Constitution Of India.

Pertinently, the Division Bench of the Court did not grant relief to the Roshanara Club and on the contrary, directed the DDA to devise a scheme to run the club, while the possession was also not handed over to the ex-management of the club.

Against that order, an SLP was also preferred before the Supreme Court, where it refused to restore possession in favour of the petitioner with the liberty to prosecute other remedies. The Apex Court while refusing to restore possession had observed, “At this stage, there is no question of restoring the possession of the club in favour of the petitioner as the lease granted in favour of the petitioner has expired and as of today, the authorities have not renewed the lease. Moreover, an order of eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, has already been passed”.

The bench, therefore, dismissing the application, has now listed the matter on December 7, 2023 along with a letter patents appeal.

Cause Title: Manish Aggarwal v. The Estate Officer & Ors.