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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more