The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the Union Government to continue eviction proceedings against the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd, holding that the club’s occupation of the racecourse land became “unauthorised” after expiry of the lease in 1994. Setting aside an earlier interim order that had halted proceedings, the Division Bench ruled that the government was entitled to invoke provisions of the Public Premises Act and observed that the Single Judge had granted protection without examining key legal principles such as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for the future of the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the Union Government to proceed with eviction proceedings against the club under the Public Premises Act, setting aside an earlier interim order that had stalled the process.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the Single Judge had erred in restraining the Estate Officer from continuing proceedings pursuant to the show-cause notice issued on April 17, 2026. The Bench observed that the interim order lacked proper reasoning and failed to examine the essential principles governing grant of interim relief, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

At the heart of the dispute lies a sprawling tract of government land leased to the Race Club in 1926 for use as a racecourse. While the lease had been periodically extended, the government maintained that the final extension expired on December 31, 1994 and no renewal was granted thereafter.

The court accepted the government’s argument that once the lease period expired, the club’s occupation ceased to be authorised under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. Relying on previous judgments, including Escorts Heart Institute v DDA, the Bench held that even occupants who initially entered lawfully could become “unauthorised occupants” once their legal right to remain came to an end.

Rejecting the Race Club’s contention that the fresh notice amounted to abuse of process because an earlier eviction notice issued in 1999 had been quashed in 2012, the court clarified that the earlier proceedings failed mainly on procedural grounds. The Bench noted that following the 2012 order, the government had considered the club’s request for renewal but ultimately declined it citing public and defence requirements.

The court also underlined that proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act constituted due process of law. It observed that once the Estate Officer had formed an opinion that public premises were under unauthorised occupation, issuance of a show-cause notice was a statutory remedy available to the government.

Importantly, the Division Bench rejected the Race Club’s preliminary objection that the government’s appeal itself was not maintainable. It held that although the Single Judge’s order was interlocutory in nature, it directly affected the government’s valuable statutory right to pursue eviction proceedings and therefore qualified as a “judgment” under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.

With the interim protection now vacated, the Estate Officer is free to resume proceedings against the club. However, the Bench clarified that the Race Club would continue to have full opportunity to raise all legal objections before the Estate Officer during the eviction proceedings.

The ruling marks a major legal setback for the Delhi Race Club in its decades-long tussle with the Centre over one of the capital’s most high-profile parcels of public land.