( 43 ) IN Brij Raj Krishna v. Shaw and Brothers, A. I. R. 1951 S. C. 115, the non obtante clause appearing in lection 11 (1) (a) of the relevant Act was "notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary". Their Lordships held that the act confers on Controller complete powers to decide all questions arising under the Rent Act in view of the scheme of the Act. It was ip reference to this clause specifically observed. "section 11 begins with the words "notwithstanding etc. " and hence any attempt to import the provisions relating to the law of transfer of Property for the interpretation of the Section would seem to be out of place: Section 11 is a self contained section and it is wholly unnecessary to go outside the Act for determining whether a tenant is liable to be evicted or not, and under what conditions he can be evicted. It clearly provides that a tenant is not liable to be evicted except on certain conditions. "

( 44 ) IN Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, A. I R 1952 S C 369, the non obstante clause in section 2 was as follows:"notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Bar Council act. . . . . . or in any other law". Their Lordships said that it should be ascertained as to what section 2 means "and the non obstante clause it to be understood as operating to set aside as no locger valid anything contained in relevant existing laws which is inconsistent with the new enactment". Their Lordships therefore held that the non obstante clause not only repeals particular provisions but when the enacting part of section 2 covers all advocates of the Supreme court, the non obstante clause can reasonably be read "as overriding anything contained in any relevant existing law which is inconsistent with the new enactment. . . . . . . . . . . . ".

( 45 ) IN Woman Shriniwas v. R B. and Co. , A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 689, their Lordships considered the import of such a non obstante clause. The wording of section 15 of the relevant bombay Act, which fell for their Lordships' consideration, was "notwithstanding anything contained in any law". Their Lordships interpreting the clause observed: "the non obstante clause would mean that even if any other law allowed sub-letting, e. g. , S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act the sub-letting would, because of S. 15, be unlawful" an agreement contrary to lection 15 was held to be unenforceable. Adverting to the argument that the non-obstante clause in section 10 of the Bombay act (VII of 1944) and of lection 15 of the Act under their Lordships' consideration were similar and therefore must be similarly interpreted, their Lordships observed;"the non obstante clause has to be read in conjunction with the rest of the section. Section 10 of the Act of 1944 permitted sub-letting on certain conditions. By Sec. 9 of that Act provision was made for a contract between the landlord and the tenant prohibiting subletting and in D. N. Cooper vs. Shiavax Cowasji, 1949 Bom. 131, the two provisions were reconciled by saying that a contract under section 9 prevailed over the permission given by Sec. 10. But section 15 expressly prohibits sub-letting and therefore * contract to the contrary cannot neutralise hi prohibitory effect. The non obstante clause of the two sections, section 10 of the Act of 1944 and of section 15 of the Act therefore cannot be said to have the same effect. "

( 46 ) IT is pertinent to note that the non obstante clause of section 10 of the Act referred to by their Lordships was as follows: "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force" in Vasant Rao vs. Election Commission, A. I. R. 1959 Nagpur 237. at 239, it was held: "a 'non-obatante clause is used in a provision to indicate that that provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in any other provision. No doubt one of the objects is to indicate that despite any repugnancy between the provision containing a non-obstante clause and another provision, the former is to pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document