Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. By this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in brevity 'Code'), the appellant/defendant No. 3 has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1999 whereby and whereunder learned Court below has decreed the suit filed by the respondents No. R-1 and R-2 against the appellant and other respondents and ordered that all the defendants including appellant shall jointly and severally pay the arrears of rent Rs. 87,000/- to respondents No. R-1 and R-2 along with Rs. 21,000/- mesne profit and also to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from the date of presentation of suit till possession of the suit property.

Brief facts of the civil suit filed before the Court below as follows:--

Respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the court below in which they had pleaded that the suit house belongs to them which was given to respondent No. 3/Def. No. 1 on rent. He had not paid rent from October, 1993, also closed the suit house and left for elsewhere. Respondent No. 1 and 2 by filing the civil suit prayed for arrears of rent. Even after notice, respondent No. 3/defendant No. 1 did not pay the arrears of rent. It is further pleaded that on a complaint made by the appellant/defendant No. 3, the said house was sealed by direct or indirect order of defendants No. 2, 4 to 8 and from November, 1993 till May 1998, the police guard was regularly deputed. Hence plaintiff prayed by filing the civil suit that the defendants be directed to pay jointly and severely arrears of rent of Rs. 87,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- as mesne profit from 1-12-1997 till the date of presentation of suit and also to pay Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit from the filing of the suit till date of eviction of defendants.

2. Before Court below the appellant/defendant No. 3 filed its written statement and pleaded that against defendant D-1 Balkrishna Agrawal, the appellant complained before Jagdalpur police regarding embezzlement of Rs. 74 lacs but they have not done any proceeding for sealing the suit house. They do not know as to which authority has issued order for sealing the suit house or who is in unauthorized possession of the same. Hence no cause of action arises against them. The suit filed against them is baseless.

3. Defendants No. 2 and 4 to 8 also filed their written statement and pleaded that the suit pleadings are for defendant No. 1 only. These defendants are nowhere connected with the suit house. The competent authority Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagdalpur/defendant No. 5 proceeded against the defendant No. 1 Bal Krishna Agrawal as he had not got registered his press under the Indian Press Act. The defendant No. 5 ordered for seizure of all necessary articles for publication of paper and also to seal the suit house. Against the said order the defendant No. 1 filed a revision which was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence the proceedings made by the defendant No. 5 are valid and as per provisions of the law. The suit land is not under the custody of these defendants. As the defendant No. 5 acted under his lawful authority, all these defendants are not responsible to pay any compensation and no cause of action arises against these defendants. They had also taken a plea that the suit is time barred. Hence the same may be dismissed.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties including framing of issues and opportunity of adducing evidence, learned Court below has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 by the impugned judgment and decree, against which the appellant has preferred the instant first appeal on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is bad on facts and law. Learned court below erred in holding that possession of the suit accommodation was acquired by the appellant along with other defendants. They had also taken a ground that the trial Court erred in holding that th