Jaswant Singh, J.— CM No.30593-CII of 2012 has been filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 13 days delay in refilling the revision. For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by affidavit of proprietor of petitioner-concern, the same is allowed and delay of 13 days in refilling the present revision is condoned. CR No.7403 of 2012 Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(6) of Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction)Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the concurrent findings returned by both the Authorities below, whereby petition for ejectment filed by respondent(landlord) was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad vide its order dated 26.04.2012 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad vide its order dated 25.09.2012. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlord) is a private limited company and its proprietor had filed the ejectment application on behalf of the company with the averments that the property in question is required by the company for its own use and occupation as the company intends to expand its business. It was also pleaded in the ejectment application that since the respondent company does not have sufficient space, therefore, the machinery that is required for expanding of business cannot be purchased and the order of purchase has been put on hold due to the non vacation of the premises in question. Hence, prayer was made for ejectment of the petitioner(tenant). Upon notice, petitioner(tenant) raised various preliminary objections and pleaded that there is no necessity at all, much less bona fide necessity of the company. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead evidence and after appreciating their evidence learned Rent Controller, Faridabad allowed the ejectment application and the findings thereof were affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the respondent(landlord) company has nowhere, either in its pleadings or in its evidence has stated that they are not occupying any other building or vacated such a building without sufficient cause so as to fulfill the ingredients of Section 13(3(a))(i) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the respondent(landlord) company has nowhere, either in its pleadings or in its evidence has stated that they are not occupying any other building or vacated such a building without sufficient cause so as to fulfill the ingredients of Section 13(3(a))(i) of the Act. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and having gone through the case file carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) seems appealing on the first blush but when considered minutely is completely devoid of any merit. It is by now settled position of law that even if the landlord has not pleaded in exact statutory words all the averments in the ejectment application itself, it will not make much difference. It is also settled position of law that pleadings, especially in a rent case have to be construed liberally and there is no straight jacket formula which the courts have to follow while construing the pleadings. No doubt the ingredients have to be fulfilled by the landlord but it is not the requirement of law that same have to be in a statutory language only. In the present case, it has come into evidence of the respondent(landlord) that at the time of filing of the petition there was no building in possession of the respondent(landlord) company. Not only this, both the courts below have appreciated the evidence minutely and have rightly held that the need of the respondent (landlord) is a bona fide one. Here it would be appropriate to deal with another argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) to the effect that the respondent(landlord) has purchased an industrial plot no.22, Street No.6, at Industrial Area, Sarupur/Gounchhi, Sector 54, Faridabad having an area of 1200 square yards and whose construction is complete and, therefore, the need is not bona fide. However, this Court is also not in agreement with the argument raised by the learned Counsel, for the reason that there is no proof whatsoever that has been brought on record to prove the said ownership of respondent/landlord company at the time of filing of the application and regarding the complete construction of the said premises. However, this Court is also not in agreement with the argument raised by the learned Counsel, for the reason that there is no proof whatsoever that has been brought on record to prove the said ownership of respondent/landlord company at the time of filing of the application and regarding the complete construction of the said premises. Along with the present petition an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has also been preferred by the petitioner vide CM No.30595- CII of 2012 whereby the petitioner intends to bring on record by way of additional evidence, copy of a sale deed dated 27.12.1996 Annexure A-1 wherein it has been alleged that the respondent(landlord) had bought another Industrial Property in Faridabad from one Suraj Singh and same has not been disclosed in the petition. Another document which is jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 is also sought to be placed as Annexure A-2, by way of additional evidence in order to show that as per the revenue record also, respondent(landlord) is the owner of the property. Finally, a bill dated 30.11.2012 is also being pleaded to be brought on record by way of additional evidence as Annexure A-3 so as to prove that the construction is complete and the building is being used by the respondent(landlord). Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) relying upon these documents has vehemently contended that these documents are very material and disprove the case of necessity of the respondent(landlord), as he has not pleaded the entire ingredients and has also concealed material facts from this Court. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioner(tenant), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application is also devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed, for the simple reason that the property that has been bought through sale deed Annexure A-1 has been bought by Mayank Midha in his personal capacity and the sale deed is not in favour of M/s Shipm Shila Engineers Pvt. Ltd.(company)/landlord whose necessity has been projected in the petition. Thus, no benefit can be taken of the sale deed (Annexure A-1), consequent mutation (Annexure A-2) as well as the bill (Annexure A-3) which are all in favour of Mayank Midha in his own capacity and not in name of company, whose necessity has been projected in the ejectment application. Thus, no benefit can be taken of the sale deed (Annexure A-1), consequent mutation (Annexure A-2) as well as the bill (Annexure A-3) which are all in favour of Mayank Midha in his own capacity and not in name of company, whose necessity has been projected in the ejectment application. Before concluding with the present revision petition, it would be appropriate to deal with another application that has been filed by the petitioner(tenant) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement vide C.M. No.30596-CII of 2012, whereby the petitioner(tenant) intends to add para no.4 in its preliminary objections to say that basic ingredients of Section 13 of the Act have not been pleaded and further material fact regarding ownership of an industrial plot has been concealed. To the same effect, para no.6 was also intended to be amended. On this application, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the facts that have been mentioned in the application are just and necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the case in question and the application can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms, as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner on this application, this Court is of the view that this application is also devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It has already been held in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that the documents that the tenant intends to produce on record by way of additional evidence do not in any manner, dent the case of the respondent(landlord) regarding its personal necessity and further, as regards objection regarding non pleading of necessary ingredients is concerned, the same even if not pleaded had to be considered by all the Authorities. In the present case, Authorities below have duly considered the objections regarding non pleading of ingredients. In the present case, Authorities below have duly considered the objections regarding non pleading of ingredients. Furthermore, although strict provisions of CPC are not applicable in rent matters, however, the principles are loosely applicable and in the present case, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clearly bars amendment of pleadings at this belated stage, whereby no cogent and justifiable reason has been given for not bringing the facts earlier that are intended to be brought on record at this stage. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition the same is hereby dismissed.