29 protection granted by the IT Act would apply. In this regard, we may refer to Sarwan Singh and Anr. v. Kasturi Lal14. The Court was considering Section 39 of Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 which laid down that the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding therewith contained in any other law. anything inconsistent The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 also contained non-obstante clauses. Interpreting the same, the Court held:“When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non-obstante clause stating that its provisions will override those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration. A piquant situation, like the one before us, arose in Shri Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.15 the competing statutes being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953, and the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 45-A of the Banking Companies Act, which was introduced by the amending Act of 1953, and Section 3 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1951 contained each a non-obstante clause, providing that certain provisions would have effect 14 (1977) 1 SCC 750 15 AIR 1956 SC 614 Page 29