Chagla, C.J.

[1] Government issued an order under Section 6 (4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act on 2-3-1951, requisitioning a fiat situated in a trust property of which the petitioners are the trustees. The order stated that on inquiry it was found that the premises specified in the order had become vacant on or after the month of May 1950. The petitioners contention was that the order was not valid inasmuch as the premises which were sought to be requisitioned were not premises within the meaning of the expression used in the statute. The contention of the Government on the other hand was that it was not open to the Court to go behind the declaration made in the order and that once the Government had declared that the promises were vacant, the declaration was binding upon the Government both with regard to the vacancy of the premises and the fact that the premises were the premises as defined in the statute. The learned Judge below rejected the contention of Government and held that it was open to the Court to go behind the declaration with regard to the premises and issued the order sought for by the petitioners.

[2] The first question, therefore, we have to consider is, what is the effect of a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act ? We must first look at the scheme of Section 6. That section deals with requisitioning of vacant premises. Sub-section (1) provides that it is incumbent upon the landlord to give intimation of any vacancy. Sub-section (2) provides for the manner in which the intimation has to be given. Sub-section (3) contains a prohibition upon the landlord from letting out the premises without the permission of the Government or till after a period of one month has elapsed from the date on which he has given intimation. Sub-section (4) confers upon the State Government the power to requisition premises which are vacant, and it provides :

"Whether or not an intimation under Sub-section (1) is given and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 5, the State Government may by order in writing--

(a) requisition, the premises for the purpose of the State or any other public purpose ... or

(b) require the landlord to let the premises to specified persons or class of persons or in specified circumstances."

The order of requisition here made is under Sub-Clause (a). Then there is a proviso to this section which casts a duty upon the Government to make an inquiry before making an order of requisition when no intimation of vacancy is given by a laud-lord under Sub-section (1), and it empowers the Government after making such an inquiry to make a declaration that the premises were vacant or had become vacant, and the proviso further lays down that such declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the premises were or had so become vacant. The question as to the conclusive nature of this declaration came up for consideration before a Divisional Bench of this Court and the judgment is reported in Mohsinali Mohamedali v. State of Bombay, 53 Bom. L. R. 94. In that judgment the Court pointed out that the declaration is conclusive evidence of a vacancy having occurred as contemplated by the statute, and it is not merely conclusive evidence of any particular facts found by the Government, but it is conclusive evidence of the legal concept of vacancy as understood by the Legislature. Now, "promises" is defined in Section 4 (3) and the definition is that premises means any building or part of a building let or intended to be let separately, and we are not concerned with either Sub-clause (i) or (ii) for the purpose of this appeal.

[3] The question that falls to be determined is whether when the Government makes a declaration that the premises were vacant or had become vacant, does the efficacy of the declaration apply not merely to the fact of the vacancy but also to the fact that the premises were the premises to which the Act applies. If we were to take first a purely grammatical view of the matter, what the d