ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara, filed by the respondent herein-landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant entered appearance and filed counter in R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 opposing the order of eviction sought for. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on his side. The report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. 2. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 27.03.2019, dismissed R.C.P.No.1 of 2018. The Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the R.C.P. for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide; that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is not attracted; and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. However, the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was declined on a finding that the monthly rent of the petition schedule shop room was fixed as Rs.2,500/- by mutual consent, as evidenced by Ext.A2 kychit dated 02.09.2013 and Ext.A3 agreement dated 12.11.2015, and hence the landlord is precluded from initiating eviction proceedings against the tenant for a period of 5 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan [(2011) 7 SCC 555]. Therefore, R.C.P. itself is premature and not maintainable. The Rent Control Court also declined the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, on a finding that the enhancement of rent after the alleged material alteration would show the implied consent of the landlord to the material alteration of the petition schedule shop room. 3. Challenging the dismissal of R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 by the order dated 27.03.2019 of the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 allowed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 with cost. 3. Challenging the dismissal of R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 by the order dated 27.03.2019 of the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 allowed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019 with cost. The Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fide need of the landlord for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained. Therefore, the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 555] has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, the landlord was found entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority also found that the alteration made by the tenant is a material alteration affecting the value and utility of the petition schedule building materially and permanently, which is not an alteration authorised by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority granted an order of eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act and the tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlord, within one month from the date of that order. 4. Challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.94 of 2019, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. 5. On 26.05.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondent by speed post. The petitioner was also permitted to serve notice on the respondent through his counsel before the court below. In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim order to keep in abeyance the further steps for execution of the impugned order of eviction, for a period of one month. On 03.09.2021, this Court admitted the matter on file and extended the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2021, until further orders. 6. In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim order to keep in abeyance the further steps for execution of the impugned order of eviction, for a period of one month. On 03.09.2021, this Court admitted the matter on file and extended the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2021, until further orders. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 7. Section 11 of the of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per sub-section (1) of Section 11, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. As per Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. 8. As per Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. 8. The Appellate Authority allowed R.C.A.No.94 of 2019, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021, holding that finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fide need of the landlord for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is liable to be confirmed. The Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained and as such, the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 555] has no application to the facts of the case. The Appellate Authority also found that the alteration made by the tenant, which is not an alteration authorised by the landlord, is a material alteration affecting the value and utility of the petition schedule building materially and permanently, and therefore, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. 9. In paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority noticed that, the question as to whether enhancement of the rent of the petition schedule shop room in the year 2015 was by mutual consent and whether it is fair rent was not at all considered by the Rent Control Court. The landlord has specifically pleaded that, the fair rent demanded in the year 2015 was Rs.5,000/-. However, the tenant was ready to pay only Rs.2,500/- per month. An agreement was executed between the landlord and the tenant enhancing the rent to Rs.2,500/-. The original rent was Rs.750/-, which was enhanced to Rs.1,250/- in the year 2013, which was enhanced to Rs.2,500/- in the year 2015. 10. The monthly rent of the petition schedule property, at the enhanced rate of Rs.2,500/-, cannot be treated as the market rent prevalent in the year 2015, merely for the reason that the landlord has agreed for the same in the year 2015. Annexure A3 agreement was executed on 12.11.2015, while the tenant was in occupation of the petition schedule shop room. Annexure A3 agreement was executed on 12.11.2015, while the tenant was in occupation of the petition schedule shop room. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, the landlord has stated that, though he demanded Rs.5,000/- as monthly rent, the tenant was not ready to pay the same. During cross examination, the tenant as RW1 has deposed that, he cannot say whether Rs.5,000/- is the fair rent prevailing in the year 2015. Admittedly, no materials were placed before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to show that the monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- agreed in Ext.A3 agreement was the market rent prevalent in the year 2015 assessed and fixed between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with in holding that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained and as such, the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 555] has no application to the facts of the case. 11. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that, since the landlord deliberately suppressed ‘material facts’, i.e., the rental agreement of the year 2017, whereby the monthly rent of the petition schedule shop room was re-fixed as Rs.2,750/-, the Appellate Authority ought to have held that the R.C.P. filed by the landlord, seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act, is not maintainable. 12. In Govind Singh v. Harchand Kaur [ (2011) 2 SCC 621 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Three-Judge Bench in Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar v. Ramaratan Bapu [ (2004) 7 SCC 181 ] that ‘material facts’ are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. But what particulars ultimately will be said to be ‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 13. R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 is one filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. But what particulars ultimately will be said to be ‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 13. R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 is one filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Subject to the provisions contained in the first and second provisos to Section 11(3), a landlord is entitled for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. Similarly, a landlord is entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii), if the tenant uses the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently. The rate of rent of the petition schedule shop room is not a ‘material fact’ upon which the cause of action of the landlord, in a Rent Control Petition filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act, depends. Moreover, the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 555] has no application to the facts of the case, since no materials were placed before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to show that the monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- agreed in Ext.A3 agreement was the market rent prevalent in the year 2015 assessed and fixed between the landlord and the tenant. No materials were placed to show that the monthly rent of Rs.2,750/- agreed was the market rent prevalent in the year 2017 assessed and fixed between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, the rate of rent agreed in the year 2015 or 2017 is not a ‘material fact’ upon which the cause of action of the landlord in R.C.P.No.1 of 2018 depends. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant regarding suppression of ‘material facts’ by the respondent-landlord. 14. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant regarding suppression of ‘material facts’ by the respondent-landlord. 14. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion. 15. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [ (2014) 9 SCC 78 ] a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana [ (1993) 1 SCC 499 ] the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in Rukmini Amma Saradamma that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 16. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority while ordering eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It cannot also be said that, while ordering eviction, the Appellate Authority committed manifest error, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. It cannot also be said that, while ordering eviction, the Appellate Authority committed manifest error, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 15.03.2021 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.94 of 2019. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would submit that considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the tenant may be given at least one year time to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. 18. On the above request made by the learned counsel for the tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that a reasonable period of six months' time can be granted for surrendering the vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room, on condition that the tenant shall clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default. 19. The learned counsel for the tenant would submit that the tenant is prepared to clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and he shall continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default, till he gives vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlord. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed declining interference on the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority; however by granting six months' time to the petitioner-tenant, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondent-landlord, considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of COVID-19 pandemic, subject to the following conditions: (i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the petitioner-landlord within six months from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop room and further he shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop room only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities; (ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default; (iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioner-landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.