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

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...

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...