CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are residents of West Park Road in one of the extensions of Bangalore City known as 'kumara Park East Extension'. It will be convenient at this stage itself to state that this area at the relevant time was treated by the Planning Authority in the Outline Development Plan as moderately developed area for purposes of Zonal Regulations. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioners that 3rd respondent has built an apartment complex in contravention of the Zonal Regulations framed in accordance with the Outline Development Plan of the City and contrary to the sanctioned plan. Their specific case is that the building which at the time of filing the petition was under construction was designed for having six floors including the basement while the Zonal Regulations did not permit more than five floors. That the sanctioned plan prohibited construction of balcony in the first and the second floors despite which they had been constructed and in that view of the matter, this Court must direct by appropriate Writ, the 1st respondent, Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, to take appropriate action and demolish the offending portions of the constructions which according to them included construction of five apartments on the top floor while the 3rd respondent had sanctioned permission to construct only two apartments. Therefore, the present Writ Petition. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. The 1st respondent-Commissioner, the authority, which has sanctioned the plan has filed his statement of objections to which I will make reference shortly. Similarly, the 3rd respondent has also filed his statement of objections. Before adverting to the averments in the statement of objections, it will be useful to state that when this court directed notice on the Counsel for the Corporation, it did not grant any interim relief prayed for by the petitioners. Perhaps it was in that circumstance that an appeal was filed in w. A. No. 1077/1984 seeking an interim order restraining the 3rd respondent from proceeding with the construction. I make the above observation in view of the fact that on 1-6-1984 rule was issued and by a considered order injunction restraining further construction was refused. Perhaps it was in that circumstance that an appeal was filed in w. A. No. 1077/1984 seeking an interim order restraining the 3rd respondent from proceeding with the construction. I make the above observation in view of the fact that on 1-6-1984 rule was issued and by a considered order injunction restraining further construction was refused. The appellate Court did not interfere with the order refusing to grant interim relief but recorded an undertaking given by the Counsel for the 3rd respondent that he shall not violate any of the zonal Regulations. If he did, he was prepared to have that portion of the construction which was in violation of the Zonal Regulations demolished as directed by the Court in the event of rule being made absolute in the case. That was on 15th June, 1984. Thereafter, this Court again passed an order on 8th April, 1985 taking into account the order of the Appellate Bench in the aforementioned Writ Appeal and formulated the question which fell for decision in the following manner: "according to the petitioners the basement floor should be taken into account in calculating the total number of floors permissible under the Zonal Regulations. Licence, however, has been granted for five floors including the basement floor. In the last floor even according to the licence, respondent-3 is permitted to put up only three apartments but actually respondent-3 has put up five apartments. In a Division Bench decision of this Court, this Court has held that maximum number of floors permitted for residential building in the City of Bangalore under the Zonal Regulations was only five. The crucial question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition therefore is whether for purposes of calculation of number of floors under the Zonal Regulations, the basement floor should be excluded or included. Learned Counsel for respondent-3 submitted that an appeal preferred against the Division Bench Judgment of this Court by the builders is pending before the Supreme Court and decision is likely to be rendered shortly. " In the circumstances, after hearing learned Counsel for all the parties, I make the following interim order (i) The Corporation is at liberty to issue the occupation certificate subject to the following conditions ( a) The basement floor shall not be used for any purpose other than car parking. " In the circumstances, after hearing learned Counsel for all the parties, I make the following interim order (i) The Corporation is at liberty to issue the occupation certificate subject to the following conditions ( a) The basement floor shall not be used for any purpose other than car parking. (b) All the five apartments in the last floor shall not be allowed to be occupied by any one and shall be kept vacant, (c) Other four floors may be given for occupation subject to the condition that they will raise no objection for demolition of the top floor if becomes necessary in the light of the final decision in the petitions and this condition shall be made known to the occupants. Post the petition for final hearing after a memo is filed by either of the Counsel that the appeal before the Supreme Court is disposed of. " ( 4 ) IT is in the light of these events that the statement of objections and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents should appreciated. The commissioner of the Corporation in his statement of objections has dented that the plan sanctioned by the Corporation is in any way in violation of the Zonal Regulations. He has, however, stated that the basement floor has not been utilised by the 3rd respondent for commercial purposes as on the date the objections were filed and therefore there was no violation; but as the building was not completed, the Corporation reserved its right to take action in accordance with law if there was violation subsequently. The 3rd respondent in his statement of objections has denied the allegations made by the petitioners while asserting that he has constructed the residential apartments only in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the 1st respondent-Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. He has asserted that the basement provided for closed garages for car parking of residents of the apartments and he had constructed the ground floor and the upper floors and therefore it was incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that the 3rd respondent was trying to put the 5th floor as alleged by the petitioners. He has also alleged ulterior motives to the petitioners who want to harass him as the cause for prosecuting the Writ Petition. He has also alleged ulterior motives to the petitioners who want to harass him as the cause for prosecuting the Writ Petition. He has more than once reiterated that he has been constructing the building in accordance with the Zonal Regulations and according to him he has denied that the basement was ever intended to be used for commercial purposes, renting them out for shops etc. ( 5 ) MR. Madhu Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that under the relevant Zonal Regulations in force at that point of time applicable to moderately developed areas, the number of floors that could be permitted to a building beside a road having the width of over 40 ft. was five floors and not more than that. The petitioners having put up six floors, there was a clear violation of the Outline Development Plan as evidenced by the table to the regulations which provided the floor area ratio, maximum height of the building, the width of the road, and the apartment that could be occupied by the number of families with reference to the site area. The thrust of the argument is that basement also should be reckoned as a floor and counting the basement, the ground floor and the remaining four floors the construction now completed by the petitioners was of six floors which was impermissible and therefore this Court should direct the 1st respondent-Commissioner to demolish the 6th floor as impermissible and that too in the light of the undertaking given by the 3rd respondent to this Court. ( 6 ) THE next argument is, even otherwise there is a clear violation in regard to construction of balcony in the first and the second floors though it was specifically disallowed by the 1st respondent while sanctioning the plan in addition to constructing three more apartments not permitted in the sanctioned plan on the top floor. ( 7 ) SO far as the first argument is concerned the thrust is on the fact that the basement which is sanctioned in the plan for a specific purpose of usage as garage for the apartments is also a floor and the Court should treat it as such having regard to the plain meaning that may be given to a basement. Reliance has been placed on floor area ratio tables attached to the Regulations and what is made applicable to public and semi-public buildings, where under Note (2) the following is stated: " (2) Basement floors and garages when permitted in commercial and industrial areas need not be considered while calculating the total floor area. 50 per cent mezzanine floors should be taken into account while calculating floor area ratio. " The submission made by the learned Counsel is that the makers of the Regulations were clear in their mind that basement was also a floor and for that purpose they directed its exclusion from being taken into purview while calculating the floor area ratio with reference to public and semi-public buildings while determining floor area ratio under the Regulations. In fact, reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in the case of S. K. SHARMA v. CORPORATION of THE CITY OF BANGALORE ILR1986 KAR 2536. The observation reads as follows at page 2567: "27. One other question canvassed, by respondent-3 was that counting the maximum number of floors in respect of a non-residential building, the basement floor, when it is exclusively used for car-parking, should be excluded. In support of this submission, learned Counsel relied on the following portions in the Zoning Regulations: " (2) Basement floors and garages when permitted in commercial and industrial areas need not be considered while calculating the total floor area. 50 per cent mezzanine floors should be taken into account while calculating floor area ratio. " The wording of the above clauses shows that in respect of a non-residential building when basement floor is used for car parking, it has got to be excluded for computing floor area ratio and not for computing the number of floors permitted. " it is obvious that the learned Judges have said no more than what Note-2 of the Regulations affecting commercial and industrial areas has provided the manner of calculating the floor area ratio of the building. It cannot have the effect of defining judicially or otherwise the expression 'basement'. The word 'basement' is not defined in the Corporations Act or the Zonal Regulations with which we are concerned and therefore the Court must give it the ordinary meaning given to that expression in the English language which is to be found in a standard dictionary. It cannot have the effect of defining judicially or otherwise the expression 'basement'. The word 'basement' is not defined in the Corporations Act or the Zonal Regulations with which we are concerned and therefore the Court must give it the ordinary meaning given to that expression in the English language which is to be found in a standard dictionary. The word 'basement' is given the following meaning in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition at page 97 as follows: "lowest or fundamental part of structure; inhabited storey sunk below ground level. " The meaning given as above is more than sufficient for our purpose. The two essential features to be noticed here in this are: (1) that only that which is inhabited may be termed a basement, (2) inhabited meaning occupied by living persons or animals and it should be below the ground level. If these two features are found then such construction or structure will answer to the description of basement. That basements also have a floor is only stating the obvious. All things which have to be inhabited must have something to support the inhabitants. On that account basement cannot be given the meaning of the word 'floor', normally, used with reference to storeyed buildings such as surface areas providing accommodation for residents, offices or hotels. A perusal of the plan produced by the Corporation clearly demonstrates that basement in the instant case is for purpose of parking the cars of the residents of the apartments. It is in that context, in the statement of objections the Corporation reserved its right to proceed against the 3rd respondent in the event there was a breach by converting the garage place for use other than the purpose of garages. ( 8 ) THE floor also is not a term defined in the Regulations. Therefore, again the Court has to judicially give it a meaning in the context in which it occurs in the Regulations. Floor ordinarily in the English language means the surface area of anything Which may be described as a floor such as the floor of the ocean, bed of the sea floor of a room or a place where a person or living object, animate or inanimate may rest firmly. That is the widest meaning that can be given to the word. That is the widest meaning that can be given to the word. But in the context of construction of buildings for purposes of residence, industrial use and commercial use with reference to its location beside a road of given width and its location in a given area of a site with reference to the area to be occupied by such construction, floor assumes the limited connotation and is used in the technical sense denoting surface area of construction at each level above the ground level. Therefore, one may say confidently that a building has so many floors, so many storeys or so many levels which are distinct from each other. If the surface at the ground level is termed the ground floor as is commonly done as opposed and distinct from basement which is below the ground level then the floor which is above the ground floor becomes the first floor and thereafter wards each additional floor is referred to by number seriatim in the ascending order. If this should be the correct meaning assigned to the expression 'floor' the five floors provided under the Zonal Regulations relevant to us will be the ground floor and the floors constructed above the ground floor. If they do not exceed five floors then there is no transgression of the Zonal Regulations with reference to floor area ratio and the width of the road, committed by the 3rd respondent nor is there any transgression by the Commissioner in sanctioning such a plan under the Zonal Regulations. Therefore, the first argument of Mr. Madhu Nayak is liable to be rejected and it is so rejected, with this observation, that Note-2 under the public and semi-public buildings has reference for the limited purpose of calculating the floor area ratio of the specified buildings and was not meant to give meaning as a 'floor' or 'floors' with reference to counting the number of storeys permitted to be constructed under the zonal Regulations. ( 9 ) THERE is an indication in the relevant table applicable to moderately developed areas for apartment buildings as to the meaning of the floor. As earlier noticed, the table provides for the floor area ratio with reference to the size of the site and the width of the road as well as the maximum height of the building. ( 9 ) THERE is an indication in the relevant table applicable to moderately developed areas for apartment buildings as to the meaning of the floor. As earlier noticed, the table provides for the floor area ratio with reference to the size of the site and the width of the road as well as the maximum height of the building. If the width of the road is relatable to the height of the building, the number of floors has a definite co-relation to the height of the building. Neither the prohibitions imposed on the number of floors or the extent of the height may be transgressed. In other words, if in a given case five floors are permitted, the height should be exceed the maximum height provided for. A builder may build less than five floors but not exceed the height prescribed in his case. Thus, it is easy to understand that what does not affect the height of the building like the basement which is below the ground level cannot be termed a floor with reference to the number of them which add up to the height. ( 10 ) THIS leaves us with the second argument that there has been violation of the plan. In the course of the argument it is admitted that on the 5th floor more area has been constructed than what was sanctioned. But that excess construction is pending certain proceedings in the nature of compounding or post facto sanctioning with such penalty as the Corporation may impose, before the Commissioner of the Corporation and that matter has not been since disposed of due to the pendency of this Writ Petition. I do not know how the pendency of this Writ Petition came in the way of the Corporation except the fact the matter was in issue in this Court. If they are disposed of one way or the other, there will be no room for arguments. Similarly, I am informed that first floor and the second floors constructed are in violation of the Zonal Regulations of the sanctioned plan and violates specifically the Regulations or restrictions imposed by the Fir fighting Force. If they are disposed of one way or the other, there will be no room for arguments. Similarly, I am informed that first floor and the second floors constructed are in violation of the Zonal Regulations of the sanctioned plan and violates specifically the Regulations or restrictions imposed by the Fir fighting Force. If that is so, the Corporation will take immediate steps to see that any construction which is contrary to law is proceeded against in accordance with the provisions contained in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as well as any other law for the time being in force within Karnataka subject to its decision in matters pending either compounding or post facto sanction for any violation. ( 11 ) THE petitioners succeed to the extent indicated as above and rule will be made absolute only in respect of the second argument to the extent indicated. In respect of the first argument rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.