( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original landlord of the agricultural land located in Survey Nos. 15 and 16 of village Kurutanwadi, Taluka Chandgad, District kolhapur. The land in Survey No. 15 admeasures 13 acres and 37 Gunthas, whereas the land in Survey No. 16 admeasures 20 Acres and 15 Gunthas. The land was saranjam Inam Jahagir and on abolition of Inam, the land came to be resumed by the Government and was re-granted to the landlord on new and permanent tenure by an order dated 8/8/1968. ( 2 ) IT appears that sometimes in early 1969 proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act) were commenced by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal at chandgad and the statement of the tenant Shri Narsu babaji Patil was recorded on 28/5/1969 and the statement of Mr. Ramrao Anantrao Kulkarni was recorded on 14/6/1976. However, before the statement of Mr. Kulkarni was recorded, the ALT passed an order on 4/10/1969 and fixed purchase price to be paid by the tenant i. e. the present original respondent Shri narsu Babaji Patil. The landlord, therefore, filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector, which was registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 183 of 1970 contending that the lands in Survey Nos. 15 and 16 were given on lease for the the cultivation of sugarcane and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 43-A of the Act, the proceedings under Section 32-G of the act were not maintainable. It appears that the same contentions were also advanced originally by the landlord before the ALT while opposing the proceedings under Section 32-G. However, these contentions were turned down by the Special Deputy Collector and tenancy Appeal No. 183 of 1970 was dismissed. Consequently, Tenancy Revision Application No. 257 of 1971 was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Kolhapur and the Revision Application was allowed by remanding the inquiry to the ALT. ( 3 ) ON remand, the ALT conducted fresh inquiry and by the order dated 29/7/1976 held that the landlord failed to prove that the suit land was given on lease for growing sugarcane crop. Consequently, the earlier order dated 4/10/1969 came to be confirmed. ( 3 ) ON remand, the ALT conducted fresh inquiry and by the order dated 29/7/1976 held that the landlord failed to prove that the suit land was given on lease for growing sugarcane crop. Consequently, the earlier order dated 4/10/1969 came to be confirmed. This second order dated 29/7/1976 passed by the ALT came to be challenged before the SDO, Gadhinglaj Division, gadhinglaj in Tenancy Appeal No. 15 of 1976 and the same was dismissed on 30/6/1977. Revision Application no. 371 of 1977 filed before the M. R. T. was also dismissed on 23/1/1979 and, therefore, the landlord approached this court in Writ Petition No. 456 of 1980. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the order of the M. R. T. was set aside by remanding the case to the same Tribunal to hear the parties afresh and decide the rights of the respective parties. The parties were granted liberty to file additional papers or documents, if they so desired, as per the decision of this court dated 21/12/1983. On remand, the M. R. T. decided the Revision Application afresh after hearing all the parties concerned and by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11/2/1988 the Revision Application no. 371 of 1977 came to be dismissed for the second time. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, this petition is only in respect of the land located in Survey No. 15, admeasuring 13 acres and 37 Gunthas and it does not concern the remaining land in Survey No. 16, admeasuring 20 Acres and 15 Gunthas. When the revision was remanded by this court by allowing partly Writ Petition No. 456 of 1980, the petitioner-landlord filed a copy of the lease agreement entered between his late father Shri hunmantrao Dattajirao Sawant-Bhosale and Professor ramrao Anantrao Kulkarni. This agreement was dated 30/9/1943 and it was for a period of 40 years. Resultantly, it was to expire on 1/1/1984. The landlord contended before the M. R. T. in the second round on remand that as per the said lease agreement the land was given to Mr. Kulkarni on lease for cultivation of sugarcane and Mr. Kulkarni had, in turn, inducted the present respondent as the tenant of the suit land by an oral agreement. The relevant term of the agreement, which is in Marathi, has been reproduced by the M. R. T. in the impugned Judgment. Kulkarni on lease for cultivation of sugarcane and Mr. Kulkarni had, in turn, inducted the present respondent as the tenant of the suit land by an oral agreement. The relevant term of the agreement, which is in Marathi, has been reproduced by the M. R. T. in the impugned Judgment. The true official translation of the same reads as under:-"an agreement has been made between both of us that there is no hindrance (obstruction) to cultivate any crop or to yield bagayat (fruit, vegetables) crop by taking river water installing engine or by using water wheel, by the number 2 of us. "there can be no doubt that said term of the agreement does not specifically say that the suit land was given to Mr. Kulkarni for cultivation of sugarcane. The said clause can be read in two parts, namely, (i) the tenant was at liberty to take out any crop and (ii) there was no objection if he wanted to lift water from the additional river and irrigate the land so as to cultivate Bagayat crops. Section 90 (6) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 defines the types of land under irrigation and bagayat. For irrigation land has been classified in the following three categories:- (a) that watered by Govt. Canals notified by govt. first class irrigation works. (b) that irrigated by water lifted by mots from wells. (c) that watered by pat water from bandhars constructed in the beds or rivers or nalas at private or Government costs. As per the landlord the lease agreement clearly indicate that the land was in the third category i. e. lift irrigation from the river water. ( 5 ) IN the absence of a specific term that the land was leased out for cultivation of sugarcane, it would be necessary to examine the evidence as to whether the tenant, originally Mr. Kulkarni and subsequently present respondent, was cultivating the land and sugarcane crop was cultivated. No doubt, in the evidence produced by the respondent in terms of the 7 x 12 extract, the M. R. T. in its very first decision dated 10/1/1973 had recorded a finding that sugarcane crop was cultivated in four agricultural years as under :-