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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more