<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (8) TMI 111 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924</link>
    <description>A tenancy incidental to a Special Economic Zone developer-entrepreneur relationship is governed by the SEZ statutory framework where that scheme provides a separate dispute-resolution mechanism. In that setting, the rent control forum does not survive to the extent it conflicts with the special statute, and a rent control petition is not maintainable. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was treated as inapplicable on these facts because the SEZ regime operated in a different field and prevailed for the dispute. The Public Premises Act was also found inapplicable, as the premises did not satisfy the statutory character of public premises on the record before the Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 111 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924</link>
      <description>A tenancy incidental to a Special Economic Zone developer-entrepreneur relationship is governed by the SEZ statutory framework where that scheme provides a separate dispute-resolution mechanism. In that setting, the rent control forum does not survive to the extent it conflicts with the special statute, and a rent control petition is not maintainable. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was treated as inapplicable on these facts because the SEZ regime operated in a different field and prevailed for the dispute. The Public Premises Act was also found inapplicable, as the premises did not satisfy the statutory character of public premises on the record before the Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>