JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the order dated 12.9.2013 rendered by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla in Case No. 9-2 of 2011. 2. Key fact, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent has filed petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for eviction of the present petitioner. The issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 24.7.2012. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the reply. The application was resisted by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller passed the order on 12.9.2013. The petitioner wanted to introduce two new facts by way of amendment: (a) There is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. b) The daughters of deceased were also necessary parties. 3. The tenant cannot be permitted to deny the status of landlord as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Rather, the petitioner has not controverted that the respondent is landlord of the premises in her reply. The daughters of the deceased were not necessary parties. The petitioner has also taken a specific plea of non-joinder of necessary parties in the reply filed to the petition. The issues were framed as noticed on 24.7.2012. The application has been filed belatedly to wriggle out of the admission by the petitioner in the reply filed to the petition. The petitioner has failed to prove that despite exercise of due diligence, she could not have brought facts before the Court prior to the commencing of the trial. The only reason assigned is that she is 72 years old and was affected by old age. It is not the case of the petitioner that her mental status has been affected by the old age. 4. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.