Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction row explained: ₹47.58 cr in unpaid dues, a High Court battle & 14,000 members in limbo

Delhi High Court is set to hear the Delhi Gymkhana Club’s petition challenging the Centre’s eviction notice, escalating the legal battle over control of the elite 113-year-old institution. The petition argues that the government’s direction to vacate the 27.3-acre premises by 5 June is arbitrary and violates due process. Members have alleged that the move is an attempt to seize control of the club despite ongoing legal and administrative proceedings.

The Delhi Gymkhana Club, one of India's oldest and most storied private institutions, is fighting a government order to vacate its 27.3-acre premises in the heart of Lutyens' Delhi by 5 June.

Its membership list has historically read as a who's who of Indian public life: senior civil servants, retired and serving military officers, judges, politicians and diplomats.

The Delhi Gymkhana Club currently has approximately 14,000 members and users, and employs more than 500 staff. Reportedly the Delhi Gymkhana Club also boasts long waiting lists for membership, ranging up to 10 years.

The government's stated justification was that the land, given its location near the Prime Minister's residence and other high-security zones, was "critically required for the strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure and other vital public security purposes."

The government notice to Delhi Gymkhana Club stated that the land was also needed to fulfil "urgent institutional needs, governance infrastructure, and public interest projects, integrated with the resumption of adjoining government lands."

Crucially, the notice specified that upon re-entry, "the entire plot of land measuring 27.3 acres, along with all buildings, standing erections, structures, lawns, and fittings thereon, shall vest absolutely in the Lessor, i.e., the President of India, through the Land and Development Office."

Earlier, on 16 May, the government-nominated committee overseeing the club had separately approached the Delhi High Court and obtained a stay on ground rent proceedings, on the basis that "some endeavours are being made to amicably resolve the dispute." The court fixed 21 July as the next date in that matter.

Members of the previously elected managing committee are also separately planning to move the High Court to challenge the L&DO's takeover notice.

The first letter, dated 12 September 2025, raised a demand for revised ground rent with interest totalling ₹32.88 crore. A second letter on 27 March 2026 asked the club to provide copies of rent deeds executed with Punjab National Bank, which occupies office space within the club premises, for the determination of additional subletting charges. When no adequate response was received, a third and final letter was issued on 16 May 2026, consolidating the outstanding amount at ₹47.58 crore and issuing a seven-day ultimatum.

That letter stated plainly: "Failure to comply with these directions and remit the outstanding amount of ₹47,58,91,317 within the stipulated 7-day period will constrain this office to initiate re-entry proceedings for the premises, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed."

It also noted that subletting charges relating to the Punjab National Bank office space had not yet been calculated, as the club had failed to submit the required documents.

Critically, a member of the last elected managing committee told ThePrint that the government-appointed committee overseeing the club had not informed ordinary members about the L&DO notices or the accumulating dues. The disclosure has added a layer of internal accountability questions to an already complex controversy.

That committee, in its letter to the L&DO on Monday, said it had been "tirelessly working for over 4 years, managing the affairs of the Club effectively and have turned the club around from its dire financial state of losses." It pointed to financial data showing a projected profit of ₹9.25 crore for 2023-24, against a loss of ₹12.39 crore in 2021-22, as evidence of the turnaround.

The committee also noted that the improvement had been achieved without issuing new memberships, which had previously been the club's primary revenue source, and that it had digitised membership records, of which nearly 43 per cent had been unavailable when it took charge in 2022.

Members of the previous elected committee, however, have taken a starkly different view, alleging that the government-appointed body failed to comply with its statutory obligations and deliberately created grounds for the government to reclaim the land.

One committee member told reporters: “We are in regular conversation with the L&DO and officials in the Urban Development Ministry. We are trying our best to ensure that the club continues at its present location.”

The committee also argued that relocation would require substantial capital expenditure to rebuild decades of infrastructure and facilities, and that any abrupt action would "severely disrupt the functioning" of the institution and "impact multiple stakeholders like members, employees, sportsmen, etc."

Members said the premises are actively used for sport, recreation and cultural activity by thousands of people and their families, and that the club's heritage value extended well beyond the commercial worth of its land.

The fate of 14,000 members, more than 600 employees and a 111-year-old institution hangs in the balance of a dispute that is as much about governance and accountability as it is about land.