New Delhi, May 27 -- The Centre told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it will not take "immediate possession" of the Delhi Gymkhana Club and that any eviction-related action following its May 22 notice directing the iconic club to vacate by June 5 will be taken only in accordance with law and after prior notice. Taking note of the Centre's statement, the court issued summons in the suit filed by long-standing member Vijay Khurana, DGC staff welfare association, and the last elected body of the club, to the Centre and DGC but said that "no interim directions were called for" in view of the statements. During the hearing, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Centre's standing counsel Ashish Dixit submitted before justice Avneesh Jhingan that the May 22 notice pertained to "re-entry" and termination of the lease deed through invocation of Clause 4 and did not contemplate "forcible eviction" through police action. This clause permits the lessor to re-enter the premises, wholly or partly, if required for a "public purpose". On May 22, the Centre directed the club to hand over its premises at 2, Safdarjung Road to the Land and Development Office (L&DO) by June 5, invoking a public purpose clause in the original lease deed. The order stated the property is located in a "highly sensitive and strategic area" and is required to strengthen defence infrastructure and serve public security needs. Mehta argued that any action would be taken only after following due process of law, including issuance of prior notice. He further contended that the apprehensions raised by the plaintiffs, including Vijay Khurana, DGC Staff Welfare Association and the last elected body of the club, that the club's governing body, comprising Centre-appointed nominees, might hand over possession of the premises, were "baseless". He also said that the Centre "might offer" an alternative site to the club. The law officer pointed out that the governing committee itself had already approached the authorities through a May 25 letter, raising grievances against the May 22 notice. "Taking into account the summons have been issued, and in view of the statement made by the SG no further interim directions are called for and at the cost of repetition, the statement is to the effect that the eviction, if so will be as per law following a prior notice," justice Jhingan said in the order. Khurana's lawyer, senior advocate AM Singhvi, argued that the May 22 notice was vague, failed to demonstrate any concrete public purpose and, in fact, contained contradictory grounds. He contended that the action had been taken without prior notice and was vitiated by legal mala fides. Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the DGC Staff Welfare Association, submitted that there was no allegation of any violation of the lease deed by the club. The suit would be next heard on July 28....