On a consideration, therefore, of the facts and circumstances of tho case and the law referred to above, we reach the following conclusions: 624 (1) That sections 14A, 25A, 25B and 25C of the Rent Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and in view of the non obstante clause these provisions would override the existing law so far as the new procedure is concerned; (2) That there is no difference either on principle or in law between sections 14 (l) (e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to tenants under different situations; (3) That the procedure incorporated in Chapter IIIA of the Amending Act into the Rent Act is in public interest and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (4) That in view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority under section 19 (1) (a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within section 19(1) (e) or 19A of the Rent Act We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was correct in rejecting applications of the tenants for setting aside the .