M/S. Musthafa & Almana International ... vs Smartcity (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. ... on 31 July, 2025
The respondent also places his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Telugana High Court in Ranganath Properties Private Limited v. Tech Zone
Private Limited reported in 2023 SCC Online TS 507. In the light of the decisions
cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, it can be seen the predominance of
Central Acts over the State Acts and in case of disputes, the Acts promulgated under
the Union List will prevail over the State law. Upon the settled propositions of law,
only in case of conflict in two non-obstante clauses occurred, the effect shall be given
to the Central enactment. But here in the instant case, it is to be noted that even the
object and the whole provisions of the SEZ Act is silent and does not provide for the
proceedings which are to be followed in case of eviction of tenants. The purpose of
the SEZ Act provides only for the establishment, development, and management of
the special economic zones for the promotion of exports and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto and, not for provisions with regard to eviction of
tenants. Further section 31 of the SEZ act, which provides for the constitution of
authority under the said Act is also silent with regard to the provisions for eviction of
tenants. Also, SEZ Act is not a subsequent enactment governing the same subject
matter as provided in the KBLR Act. At the same time the preamble of BRC Act is to
regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State
of Kerala, which deals with solely the eviction of tenants on various grounds as
enumerated in section 11 of the Act. Hence there is no case for conflict of non-
obstante clauses as contended by the respondent in the present case.