Go back and reread the letter. X states "We regret to inform you that you no longer qualify for the student subsidy program". The "we" being the operative word that implies the writer, X, is part of the board that oversees student income and the letter was originally intended to be a formal letter of resignation from the funding program. The MC describes Kan as "he is the manager of the apartment". A landlord. Nothing more. Has no tie to the academy. Had the letter been from him, he would have chosen "I" in place of "we". As I live with and help out a property owner in real life I can say for certain that just because we rent to college students and live by the colleges does not make me/us affiliated with any of the surrounding three colleges near me.
And I'm sure he would have signed it "Your buddy Kan" too, because the letter writer's intent is clearly to avoid any ambiguity or confusion regarding their identity. Do take another look at the postscript to that letter before you build out your theory much more based on the "we" in the beginning. And let us know how many of those three colleges near you are likely to include "BTW, here's some highly experimental equipment free of charge and a link to a voyeur porn site, GLHF =)" on their official communications.
I did make a mistake on (5) in my list earlier, though - the letter mentions that the assistance payments were getting deposited into MC's account, rather than going directly towards rent, so their absence would confirm this change for the MC independently of the letter. I also assumed "subsidized apartment" meant campus housing with Kan as RA or something like that, which I suppose is not necessarily the case.