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