MADAN B.LOKUR, J. - (1.) Leave granted in both petitions.
(2.) The question for consideration is whether the appellants (Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj) have per se violated the terms of the lease -cum -sale agreement that they have individually entered into with the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA ') by constructing a multi - storeyed residential building on the plots allotted to them. The alternative question is whether the construction made by them is contrary to the plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP ') and thereby violated the lease -cum -sale agreement with the BDA. The term of the lease -cum -sale agreement alleged to have been violated is clause 4 which reads as follows: ''4. The Lessee/Purchaser shall not sub -divide the property or construct more than one dwelling house in it. The expression 'dwelling house ' means building constructed to be used wholly for human habitation and shall not include any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not, used as a shop or a building of warehouse or building in which manufactory operations are conducted by mechanical power or otherwise. (a) The Lessee shall plant at least two trees in the site leased to him. ''
(3.) In our opinion, both the questions are required to be answered in the negative. There has been no violation of the lease -cum -sale agreement or the sanction plan for construction such as to violate the lease -cum -sale agreement with the BDA. The facts;