ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State, Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai as also Respondent No. 7, the Manager of Ram Das Trust. 2. Petitioners were the tenants of the trust. They were forcibly evicted from the tenanted premises, this writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, to direct the trust and its manager to provide the petitioners space in the premises which has been raised after demolishing the old premises from which petitioners were evicted. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier petitioners were served with notice dated 24.08.2005, Annexure-5 series asking the petitioners to vacate the premises detailed in the notice as the building in which the premises-in-question is located has become unsafe for habitation. On failure of the petitioners to obey the directions contained in the notice petitioners were forcibly evicted from the premises-in-question with the help of District Administration, Lakhisarai. In this connection several letters were also written by the authorities of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board directing the Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Nagar Parishad contained in Annexure-C series to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7 for ensuring eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises-in-question on the ground that the building in which the premises are located has become unsafe for habitation. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions with the help of the District Administration, Lakhisarai petitioners were evicted from the tenanted premises-in-question whereafter the building was demolished and another building has been raised but petitioners have not been provided with any alternative accommodation in lieu of their earlier tenancy in the new building raised in the same campus. Petitioners approached the Civil Court before their eviction and demolition of the building for injunction which was initially granted restraining the authorities from evicting the petitioners from the shop premises but the order of injunction was later vacated by the appellate court. Those two orders are contained in Annexures-2 and 3 to this application. After the prayer of the petitioners for injunction was vacated it appears the petitioners were evicted from their shop premises forcibly and the old building was demolished raising another new building. 4. Those two orders are contained in Annexures-2 and 3 to this application. After the prayer of the petitioners for injunction was vacated it appears the petitioners were evicted from their shop premises forcibly and the old building was demolished raising another new building. 4. This writ petition has been filed on 05.05.2006 after eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted premises and demolition of the building praying, inter alia, to compensate the petitioners as also to provide them with alternative space as by taking action for forcible eviction of the petitioners the authorities have not only violated the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 but also infracted the right of livelihood of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the contents of the notice dated 24.08.2005, contained in Annexure-5 series perusal whereof indicates that thereunder Respondent No. 7 admitted that the petitioners are his monthly tenant and they should vacate the premises-in-question as the building in which premises in question is located has become unsafe for habitation. 5. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 7 it is also quite evident that the contents of the notice admitting the tenancy of the petitioners has not been disputed by Respondent no. 7. 6. In view of the admitted fact, as is appearing from the contents of the writ petition, notice dated 24.08.2005, Annexure-5 series as also the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7, I asked the counsel for the Lakhisarai Nagar Parishad to place before this Court the order passed by the Board of Commissioners under Section 194 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 declaring the building in which the tenanted premises of the petitioners stood located was ever declared unfit for habitation, learned counsel candidly accepted that no such order has been annexed with the counter affidavit. He, however, placed reliance on the report of the Assistant Engineer bearing Memo No. 30 dated 08.04.2005, Annexure-E to the counter affidavit addressed to the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Sahebganj Headquarter Sheikhpura, perusal whereof indicates that the Assistant Engineer having inspected the building-in-question reported to the Executive Engineer that the building in question is dilapidated. He, however, placed reliance on the report of the Assistant Engineer bearing Memo No. 30 dated 08.04.2005, Annexure-E to the counter affidavit addressed to the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Sahebganj Headquarter Sheikhpura, perusal whereof indicates that the Assistant Engineer having inspected the building-in-question reported to the Executive Engineer that the building in question is dilapidated. Learned Counsel for the Municipality also relied on the letter of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad, Lakhisarai addressed to the Deputy Collector, Incharge, Revenue Section, Lakhisarai, whereunder request has been made to provide force so as to meet the dissent of the tenants at the time of the demolition of the building. Aforesaid letter of the Executive Officer also refers the writ petition, number whereof has not been indicated in the letter, whereunder prayer has been made by the Manager of the trust for passing orders for demolition of the building. 7. The State-respondents have also filed their counter affidavit and admitted that before demolishing the building-in-question the petitioners were forcibly evicted from the premises-in-question and after their forcible eviction the building has been demolished by Respondent No. 7 who has also raised another building over the same land on which demolished building earlier stood and petitioners have not been provided with alternative accommodation in the new building. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition, counter affidavit of Respondent Nos. 6,7 as also the contents of the notice dated 24.08.2005, Annexure-5 series I am satisfied that petitioners were legally inducted monthly tenant in the building-in-question. They have been evicted from the premises-in-question without there being any order of the competent court for their eviction. The demolition of the building-in-question on the ground that it was unsafe for habitation is also illegal and without authority of law as the Board of Commissioners of Lakhisarai Municipality (Nagar Parishad) have not passed order under Section 194 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 declaring the building-in-question unsafe for habitation. Building having not been declared unsafe petitioners could not have been forcibly evicted therefrom without there being any order to that effect. 9. Building having not been declared unsafe petitioners could not have been forcibly evicted therefrom without there being any order to that effect. 9. Accordingly, I direct Respondent No. 7 to provide the petitioners alternative space commensurate to their earlier tenancy in the new building which has been raised after demolishing the old one, if the space raised in the new building has already been let out to others and there is no space available for petitioners, alternative accommodation in the trust premises be provided to the petitioners, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that once the petitioners are provided with space they shall withdraw the title suit referred to in the earlier paragraph. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.