SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) ADMIT. ( 2 ) AT request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the perpetual lessee of property bearing No. 97, Block 171, sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The property was purchased by the petitioner Trust from Smt. Kundan Mal and the name of the petitioner Trust has been mutated in the records of the perpetual lessor, Landdo, as the perpetual lessee. The petitioner executed a lease deed on 1. 10. 1972 in respect of the ground floor portion in favour of M/s AJ Printers at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- for a period of three years. In terms of the lease deed, the premises are to be used only for residential purposes and no structural additions or alterations are to be carried on. M/s AJ Printers also agreed to comply with all rules and regulations of the local authorities. Similarly, the first floor has been let out by the lease deed dated 1. 1. 1999 to M/s Digvijay Cement Company Ltd. on similar terms. ( 4 ) THE tenants are stated to have committed the breaches and carried out unauthorised construction and despite notices issued, no remedial actions were taken by the tenants. The petitioner thus terminated the tenancies. ( 5 ) THE petitioners filed eviction proceedings before the court of the Additional rent Controller, Delhi. The petition filed against M/s AJ Printers was dismissed on 16. 7. 2003 while the one filed against M/s Digvijay Cement Company ltd. is stated to be still pending. Against the order dated 16. 7. 2003, appeal is pending before the Rent Control Tribunal. Learned counsel further states that after filing of the present petition, even the eviction petition against M/s digvijay Cement Company Ltd. has been dismissed on the ground that the breaches are compoundable in nature but an appeal has been filed against the said order. ( 6 ) THE Landdo, however, has been issuing notices to the petitioner and finally threatened an order of re-entry. ( 7 ) THE petitioner along with the suit filed an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge in terms of the order dated 7. 9. ( 7 ) THE petitioner along with the suit filed an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge in terms of the order dated 7. 9. 1989 and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the order dated 21. 11. 1996. The substratum of the impugned order is that the respondent cannot be prohibited from taking action in accordance with law for violation of the terms of the lease. ( 8 ) IN my considered view, there is no doubt that the petitioner is bound to adhere to the terms of the perpetual lease. The tenancies which the petitioner created were not violative of the perpetual lease. The tenants have caused breaches and the petitioner has taken recourse to legal remedy against the same. ( 9 ) THE matter is still sub judice and the Tribunal will have to call upon the landdo to go into the issue as to whether these are compoundable breaches or the breaches which need to be remedied and as to whether the liability is to be fastened on the tenants in so far as the damages imposed by the Landdo is concerned. ( 10 ) I am unable to accept the position that when the perpetual lessee is taking legal action, the perpetual lessor creates an impediment in the same by threatening re-entry. This would lead to a catch-22 situation as the moment the re-entry is made, the tenants would start taking a defence that the petitioner is no more their landlord. It is not as if the petitioner is prohibiting the respondents from taking any action and in fact, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent Landdo is free to remove the breaches. However, learned counsel for the respondent states on instructions that it is for the petitioner to sort out this problem since the tenancies have been created by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be left remediless by creating a situation where he is unable to take action against the tenants and is simultaneously fastened with the liability of damages and threat of re-entry. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be left remediless by creating a situation where he is unable to take action against the tenants and is simultaneously fastened with the liability of damages and threat of re-entry. ( 11 ) I am thus of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from patent error and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law by the trial court. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to threat of re-entry. This, of course, does not mean that the liability to pay damages to the Landdo is affected. ( 12 ) THE petitioner will inform the Rent Control Tribunal of this order so that necessary information can be sought from the Landdo and the Landdo will render all assistance to the Additional Rent Controller. ( 13 ) AT request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that in case the respondent wants to remedy the breaches, it has liberty to do so since the petitioner does not have any objection. Petition is allowed leaving parties to bear their own cost. No further directions are called for in this application. Application stands disposed of.