1. This is civil 1st Appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 10, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby he has decreed the preemption suit filed by respondents No. 2 and 9. The facts of the case are that predecessor of respondents No.2 and 9, namely Ved Parkash was a tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of two rooms and a court year comprising of the house as delineated in the plaint. On 6-12-1979, the said house (inclusive of the demised premises) was sold by respondent No.1 to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. The original owner had served ejectment notice on the said Ved Parkash whereby tenancy was terminated and he was asked to vacate the premises. Ved Parkash died and his legal heirs (respondents No.2 to 9) remained in possession of the demised premises and on sale of the house they filed suit for prior purchase of the demised premises. The suit was resisted by the appellant inter-alia on various grounds including the denial of their status as tenants in respect of the premises in question. Preferential right of prior purchase to the right of respondents No. 2 to 9 was also claimed by stating that the appellant had a common outer entrance with the sold premises which also served as servient property to the dominant property owned by the appellant. On 28.4.81, the trial court framed the following five issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are the tenants of the suit property and have a preferential right to purchase it? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative whether the plaintiffs have waived the right? OPD

3. In case issue No.1 is proved whether defendant No,2 is the owner of dominant heritage and the suit property being the servient heritage, defendant No.2 has a preferential right to purchase it? OPD.

4. Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

5. Relief."

2. On January 8, 1983 additional issue was framed and the same was numbered as issue No. 5. Previous Issue No. 5 was re-numbered as issue No.6. New issue was in the following effect: -

"5. Whether defendant No.2 had a preferential right to purchase the suit property on account of the fact that his property has/had common outer entrance with the suit property? OPD."

The parties led evidence on the above stated issues and the trial Judge (learned Additional District Judge, Jammu) decreed the suit in favour of respondents No. 2 to 9 as has already been stated. Through the medium of this appeal, the judgment and decree has been challenged on the following grounds: -

i) Respondents No. 2 to 9 are not tenants of the suit property within the meaning of Sec. 15(6) of Right of Prior Purchase Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act) because the tenancy of their predecessor namely, Ved Parkash stood validly terminated and they were only statutory tenants,

ii) The appellant is the owner of dominant heritage and the demised premises the sevient heritage. Besides this, the sold house has a common outer entrance with the house of the appellant. On the premises stated above, the appellant has a preferential right of prior purchase as compared with respondents No. 2 to 9.

iii) The original owner of the demised premises in question at the time of proposed sale had given its notice to respondents No.2, but she had declined to be a willing purchaser. Respondents No. 2 to 9 thus had waived their right of prior purchase. Heard the arguments.

3. The counsel for the appellant at the outset has contended that respondents No.2 to 9 are incompetent to prempt the property in question because they are statutory tenants and cannot be equated with a Tenant occupant" which term has been used In ground "sixthly" of Sec. 15 of the Act. They are in occupation of the premises because Sec. 11 of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act prohibits ejectment except otherwise by following the prescribed procedure of law. Ground "Sixthly" was substituted by Act No