Skip to main content

A doctor's house consulting room is different from a clinic - Kerala HC

A doctor's plea to have his tenant vacated so as to begin a clinic cannot be turned down citing that he is practising from another consulting room attached to the house, ruled the Kerala high court. The ruling was given by a division bench comprising of justices KT Sankaran and P Ubaid after considering a revision petition filed by the tenants, KC Mathew and KC James of Moolepat Stationery at SM Street in Kozhikode. A revision petition filed by the landlady, D Aruna, wife of Dr Raja Venkittaraman of Chalappuram, was also considered by the court.

The eviction of tenants was sought by the landlady projecting the need of her husband to start a clinic. It was pointed out that her husband has been ordered by a rent control court to vacate the premises where he was running a clinic and he now needs the place rented out by Aruna to begin a dental clinic.

On December 20, 2010, the rent control court granted eviction, finding that the landlady's need is bona fide and that the tenants have acquired buildings, which are reasonably sufficient to run their business.

However, considering an appeal, rent control appellate authority (district court) of Kozhikode held that there is a consultation room that is attached to her father-in-law Dr Venkittaraman's building, which is adjacent to her house. If at all the landlady's husband wants to start a clinic, the consultation room can be used as a clinic, the appellate authority held.

Ruling that the appellate authority erred in its decision, the high court pointed out that the consulting room adjacent to the landlady's house is in possession of late Dr Venkittaraman's wife and has a separate building number. The landlady and her husband reside in a separate building, though adjacent, the court said.

The high court held, "There is much difference between a clinic and a house consultation room. So far as a doctor is concerned, house consultation is part of his service, whereas clinic or hospital will always be part of his profession. Just because a doctor has a consultation room attached to his house, his right or determination to start a clinic or hospital of his own at some other place cannot be disputed or questioned by anybody."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Kochi/Consulting-room-at-home-not-same-as-clinic/articleshow/36264368.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more