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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more