<p>The Union government on Friday claimed before the Supreme Court that bouncers were being sent to evict government officials from flats at Sujan Singh Park in the vicinity of upmarket Khan Market here.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, mentioned the matter before a bench, presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana, and sought urgent hearing in the matter.</p>.<p>"They are sending bouncers to evict. I appear for the Union of India," he said. </p>.<p>The bench wondered how could somebody send bouncers to evict government officers. </p>.<p>"It is unfortunate," Mehta said. </p>.<p>The court fixed the matter for hearing on April 5.</p>.<p>In its plea, the Union government challenged the validity of a Delhi High Court order of January 2020, affirming the decision of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, which had directed the Centre to make payment of unpaid arrears of rent owed to the respondent Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd.</p>.<p>The residential flats are located in North and South of Sujan Singh Park, which were rented out to the government at concessional rates as far back as in 1944.</p>.<p>The Centre contended that a bare reading of Section 3 makes it clear that any government property demised in favour of a person in the form of a ‘Grant’ as per provisions of the Grants Act, will be excluded from the scope of application of the provisions of any other law/statute. </p>.<p>It further said that any legislation which is contrary to the notions in the Government Grant, will not apply to a government property granted in favour of a specific person. </p>.<p>It is, therefore, submitted that the provisions of the Grant Act will have an overriding effect over any other law, in force, which is contrary thereto, the government said.</p>.<p>The Tribunal by its order of September 01, 2007 erroneously held that the contested property was covered under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The High Court, however, affirmed the said finding by its order on January 8, 2020.</p>.<p>The government claimed that rents were paid until 1989. However, subsequently, due to many breaches by the respondent, many litigations followed.</p>.<p>In 1998, the respondent received a favourable on an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller. The Delhi High Court also decided the appeals in the favour of the respondent.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The Union government on Friday claimed before the Supreme Court that bouncers were being sent to evict government officials from flats at Sujan Singh Park in the vicinity of upmarket Khan Market here.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, mentioned the matter before a bench, presided over by Chief Justice N V Ramana, and sought urgent hearing in the matter.</p>.<p>"They are sending bouncers to evict. I appear for the Union of India," he said. </p>.<p>The bench wondered how could somebody send bouncers to evict government officers. </p>.<p>"It is unfortunate," Mehta said. </p>.<p>The court fixed the matter for hearing on April 5.</p>.<p>In its plea, the Union government challenged the validity of a Delhi High Court order of January 2020, affirming the decision of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, which had directed the Centre to make payment of unpaid arrears of rent owed to the respondent Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd.</p>.<p>The residential flats are located in North and South of Sujan Singh Park, which were rented out to the government at concessional rates as far back as in 1944.</p>.<p>The Centre contended that a bare reading of Section 3 makes it clear that any government property demised in favour of a person in the form of a ‘Grant’ as per provisions of the Grants Act, will be excluded from the scope of application of the provisions of any other law/statute. </p>.<p>It further said that any legislation which is contrary to the notions in the Government Grant, will not apply to a government property granted in favour of a specific person. </p>.<p>It is, therefore, submitted that the provisions of the Grant Act will have an overriding effect over any other law, in force, which is contrary thereto, the government said.</p>.<p>The Tribunal by its order of September 01, 2007 erroneously held that the contested property was covered under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The High Court, however, affirmed the said finding by its order on January 8, 2020.</p>.<p>The government claimed that rents were paid until 1989. However, subsequently, due to many breaches by the respondent, many litigations followed.</p>.<p>In 1998, the respondent received a favourable on an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller. The Delhi High Court also decided the appeals in the favour of the respondent.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>