https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924 The HC held that the dispute between the parties, arising under the SEZ Act, is subject to mandatory arbitration under Section 42 of the SEZ Act, excluding the applicability of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (KBLR Act). The tenancy was incidental to the entrepreneur-developer relationship governed by the SEZ Act, not a pure landlord-tenant relationship covered by the KBLR Act. The SEZ Act, a central law, and the KBLR Act, a state law, do not conflict as they govern different fields. Since the premises fall within an Industrial Township under the SEZ scheme, the KBLR Act does not apply. The respondent's eviction remedy under the KBLR Act was unavailable; disputes must be resolved via SEZ Act arbitration. The impugned eviction order was set aside, and the petition was allowed. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924 The HC held that the dispute between the parties, arising under the SEZ Act, is subject to mandatory arbitration under Section 42 of the SEZ Act, excluding the applicability of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (KBLR Act). The tenancy was incidental to the entrepreneur-developer relationship governed by the SEZ Act, not a pure landlord-tenant relationship covered by the KBLR Act. The SEZ Act, a central law, and the KBLR Act, a state law, do not conflict as they govern different fields. Since the premises fall within an Industrial Township under the SEZ scheme, the KBLR Act does not apply. The respondent's eviction remedy under the KBLR Act was unavailable; disputes must be resolved via SEZ Act arbitration. The impugned eviction order was set aside, and the petition was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775924