Therefore, the role and use intended for the appellant by the state is that of a "pipeline": the appellant's role is limited to the planning and construction of "Buyer's Price" apartments, and this is for one purpose only: in order to transfer them to those entitled to the Ministry of Housing and Construction, in order to realize the state's overarching goal within the framework of the "Buyer's Price" program – to increase the supply of apartments at a reduced price for the purpose of obtaining housing for the homeless and/or those who are improving housing.
It is not for nothing that significant contractual sanctions were also set – to the point of canceling the winning of the tender in addition to monetary compensation of NIS 450,000 in the event of the sale of a "Buyer's Price" apartment to someone who is not eligible or a sale at a price that exceeds the maximum price for such an apartment (see again clause 1.4 of Chapter B of the construction contract). Similarly, there is a significant sanction that the state imposed on the buyers of the apartments in the "Buyer's Price" project, and demanded that it be included in the sale contract between the appellant and the eligible purchaser, according to which an eligible buyer who sells the apartment before the lapse of 5 years will be able to impose a financial sanction in the sum of NIS 450,000 and even cancel the sale.
In other words, the state is involved and controls the entire process of building "Buyer's Price" apartments and transferring them to the eligible buyers, while the appellant implements the state's vision, nothing more.
- It also follows from this that in the case at hand not much significance should be attributed to the fact that in the lease contract signed by the appellant, it was stated that the appellant has a lease right for 98 years, since a right that does not amount to a real legal right of a "lease" does not become one, only because of its prima facie period. In other words, multiplying any number, no matter how large, by a zero number will result in the same result of zero.
As stated above, the entirety of the legal agreements signed by the appellant shows that it has not been granted the rights and powers that characterize the holder of a lease right – that is, the right to hold and use the land for his own needs, enjoyment and profits.