J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) VIDE Agreement dated 23. 7. 2002, Smt. Sarika Gulati, respondent No. 1 inducted Sh. Vivek Sharma, respondent No. 2 as her tenant in respect of premises bearing No. JG1/104-B, Third Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi at a monthly rental of rs. 3,500/- per month for a period of 11 months. The lease agreement was renewed vide agreement dated 5. 8. 2003 and the tenancy was further extended for a period of 11 months at the rental of Rs. 3,700/- per month. Smt. Sunita Sharma, defendant No. 2 (appellant in this case) is the wife of Shri Vivek Sharma. Sh. Vivek Sharma started residing abroad. Smt. Sarika Gulati, respondent No. 1 served a notice dated 28. 10. 2003 terminating his tenancy and called upon him to vacate the premises and hand over the above said suit premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Notice was duly served. Ultimately, Smt. Sarika Gulati filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, possession as well as recovery of Rs. 73,000/- towards arrears of rent. Smt. Sunita sharma, who was in possession of the suit property was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the original suit. Shri Vivek Sharma was proceeded against ex-parte. ( 2 ) IN her written statement, Smt. Sunita Sharma, appellant set out the following case. She herself was a tenant in the suit premises from the very inception of tenancy at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month and had also paid security to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant Smt. Sunita Sharma was directed to pay arrears of rent @ rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of 18 months prior to April, 2005. She was also directed to pay future rent at the same rate. She failed to comply with the above said order. Consequently, her defence was struck off vide order dated 25. 7. 2005. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff produced her evidence and consequently the Court passed the decree, as prayed. The appeal was preferred before the First Appellate court but it, too, did not ring the bell. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties. The main argument urged by learned counsel for the appellant was that notice u/s 106, TP Act, was never served upon the appellant, Smt. Sunita Sharma. Notice Ex. The appeal was preferred before the First Appellate court but it, too, did not ring the bell. ( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the parties. The main argument urged by learned counsel for the appellant was that notice u/s 106, TP Act, was never served upon the appellant, Smt. Sunita Sharma. Notice Ex. PW 1/6 was addressed to Shri Vivek Sharma. The acknowledgment is Ex PW 1/7. U. P. C. , Ex. PW 1/8 was sent in the name of Sunita Sharma, JG 1/104 B Vikas Puri, IInd Floor, New Delhi. Notice was admittedly received by Sunita Sharma. Succinctly stated, the notice was addressed to Shri Vivek Sharma but it was sent in the name of the appellant who was found to be in possession of the suit premises. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that under these circumstances, there is no valid service of the notice and both the Courts below have not answered this question. He further opined that the notice should have been addressed to the appellant and served upon her. In absence of this position, it should be held that no valid notice was served upon the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that appellant?s husband while working in cahoots with the landlady affixed his signatures on lease agreements in order to oust the appellant. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant did not come to grips with the real problem but touched the unimportant one. Her defence is typically gauche. The appellant is a stranger to the tenancy agreements Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex. PW 1/2 entered into between Smt. Sarika Gulati and Shri Vivek Sharma. ?the learned trial Judge noted, it is further important to mention here that Plaintiff has examined one more witness Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma who is stated to be one of the witness to the earlier rent agreement Ex. PW1/3. PW2 has identified his signatures on Ex. PW1/3 and has corroborated the facts so averred in the said rent agreement. Thus, the plaintiff has shown by way of her evidence and by way of supporting documents Ex. PW1/3 that the rate of rent of the same premises on earlier occasion was Rs. 3,700/- and at present with defendant No. 1 it has been agreed at Rs. 3,500/ -. ? This is an admitted fact that her defence stood struck off. Thus, the plaintiff has shown by way of her evidence and by way of supporting documents Ex. PW1/3 that the rate of rent of the same premises on earlier occasion was Rs. 3,700/- and at present with defendant No. 1 it has been agreed at Rs. 3,500/ -. ? This is an admitted fact that her defence stood struck off. Her defence cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was fortified by solid and unflappable documentary evidence. The appellant has never disputed the signatures of her husband on both the agreements. It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that the documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well known axiom of law that men may tell lies but the documents cannot. Moreover, the story advanced by the appellant appears to be false. On the one hand, she could not pay the meagre rent in the sum of Rs. 1000/- per month, on the other hand, she alleges that she had paid astronomical security in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. ( 6 ) IN the result, I find that the orders by both the courts below are flawless. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.