ORDER N. Dhinakar, J. 1. On a petition filed by the respondent before the Rent Control Court under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter Act), the Rent Control Authority allowed the petition of the respondent under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act, while rejecting the petition under S.11(3). On an appeal by the petitioner the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the rent controller. Hence this revision before this Court. 2. The petitioner contended before us that the arrears of rent having already been paid only the question under S.11(4) (ii) survives for a consideration for this Court. 3. According to the petitioner he has not used the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently and hence the prayer of the respondent under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act has to be rejected. The main allegation of the respondent is that the ceiling was dismantled and removed by the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the dismantling and removal of a ceiling will not attract S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. The value of the building is not only reduced but also its utility materially and permanently by the act of dismantling and removal of the ceiling. We are firmly of the view that the act of the petitioner certainly attracts S.11(4) (ii) of the Act. 4. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent either in the notice (Ext. A2) or in his pleadings did not specifically mention this fact of dismantling and removal of the ceiling and hence the case of the respondent was only an after thought is only to be stated to be rejected. We are firmly of the view that the notice and the pleadings need not contain all the details which a petitioner is going to put forward in his evidence. A perusal of Ext. A2 and the pleadings of the respondent show that he has in fact laid a foundation for S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. Just because the respondent did not specifically state in his notice and the pleadings, that the petitioner has dismantled and removed the ceiling, it will not disentitle the respondent from relying on it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. Just because the respondent did not specifically state in his notice and the pleadings, that the petitioner has dismantled and removed the ceiling, it will not disentitle the respondent from relying on it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. It is not now open to the petitioner at this stage to contend that all proceedings are vitiated for want of a specific plea. A liberal approach should always be made while construing the pleadings in a matter as otherwise there would be the risk of justice becoming a casuality. A Division Bench of this Court in Madhavan v. Leelamma ( 1991 (2) KLT 32 ) held : "If taking the entire circumstances emerged in the case, if the court feels that no prejudice has been caused to the counter petitioner/tenant on account of the pleadings of the petitioner, it is not proper to deny the relief to the petitioner on the ground that there is no pleading." A similar view was also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Rajamma v. Leela ( 1991 (2) KLT 862 ) when it stated that the court has to consider the claim in the light of the evidence and circumstances to find whether the plea is bona fide or not, which is a question of fact. In considering the plea of the landlord a realistic and not a pedantic approach is what is called for. Even if the matter of construing the pleadings a liberal approach is necessary, as otherwise there would be the risk of justice becoming a casuality. 5. In the light of the above principles laid down by this Court we are now fortified in our view that the pleadings need not contain all the details if they are later proved by evidence. When we take the case on hand we find that the respondent, when he examined himself as P.W. 1, has specifically stated that the petitioner dismantled and removed the ceiling. This evidence of the respondent was not challenged when he was cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner not only did not challenge the evidence of the respondent but did not also utter a word when he examined himself before the court. This evidence of the respondent was not challenged when he was cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner not only did not challenge the evidence of the respondent but did not also utter a word when he examined himself before the court. As the evidence of the respondent stands uncontroverted we have to necessarily accept the plea of the respondent that the petitioner has dismantled and removed the ceiling which certainly attracts S.11(4) (ii) of the Act. 6. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.