Please correct if this wrong.
25Ekakulassa pāsādo hoti, antopāsāde cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antopāsāde vatthabbaṃ. Nānākulassa pāsādo hoti, nānāgabbhā nānāovarakā. Yasmiṃ gabbhe cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti tasmiṃ gabbhe vatthabbaṃ dvāramūle vā, hatthapāsā vā na vijahitabbaṃ.
25 A multi-storey building (palace) belonging to one clan: if the robe is kept in the multi-storey building (palace), one must stay within the multi-storey building (palace). A multi-storey building (palace) belonging to many clans and having many rooms: one must stay in the room where the robe is kept, or at the main entrance, or not go beyond arm’s reach of either.
26Ekakulassa hammiyaṃ hoti. Antohammiye cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antohammiye vatthabbaṃ. Nānākulassa hammiyaṃ hoti, nānāgabbhā nānāovarakā. Yasmiṃ gabbhe cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti tasmiṃ gabbhe vatthabbaṃ dvāramūle vā, hatthapāsā vā na vijahitabbaṃ.
26 A double-storey building belonging to one clan: if the robe is kept in the double-storey building, one must stay within the double-storey building. A double-storey building belonging to many clans and having many rooms: one must stay in the room where the robe is kept, or at the main entrance, or not go beyond arm’s reach of either.
Have you had a look at the SuttaCentral translation? Here it is:
A stilt house belonging to one clan: if the robe is kept in the stilt house, one must stay within the stilt house. A stilt house belonging to many clans and having many rooms: one must stay in the room where the robe is kept, or at the main entrance, or not go beyond arm’s reach of either.
Thanks @Brahmali I did see that (SuttaCentral). In (SuttaCentral) (SuttaCentral) my understanding is “(24bu-np.2.3.7)Still house=māḷo” “(25 ) the multi-storey building (palace)=pāsādo” “(26) A double-storey building=hammiyaṃ”, please clarify if you can.
The idea that pāsāda means “multi-storied building” or “palace” is taken from the commentaries. In the Canonical texts, however, pāsāda seems to be a generic term for a stilt-house. I have personally researched this term and written a short essay, here, to substantiate my translation.
As for hammiya, there is not enough evidence on the suttas/vinaya to ascertain its precise meaning. For this reason I have followed the commentarial suggestion that it is a specific type of pāsāda. Since the allowable zones around the two buildings are the same, I have not made a separate category for hammiya, but included it under pāsāda.