JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:—Special leave is granted and the appeals are disposed of after hearing both counsel.

2. The appeal has been preferred from an order of a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13-1-1992 by which the learned Judge set aside an order passed by the District Judge appointing one Shri R. B. L. Shrivastava to arbitrate on the disputes between the appellant and the M. P. State Ware Housing Corporation. Consequent on this order, the learned Judge dismissed another appeal filed before it (Miscellaneous Appeal No.482 of 1991) as infructuous.

3. The facts leading the present appeal are as follows:-

The appellant Gopal Saran Singh claims to represent "Everest Co-owners, A. B. C." owning certain godowns situated in Satna. According to the appellant, these godowns were constructed in 1977 for, and let out on rent to the Food Corporation for a period of five years. Again according to the appellant, even during the period of five years, the M. P. State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) took the premises on rent from the Food Corporation of India without notice to, or consent of, the appellant. Subsequently, it is said, the respondent expressed its willingness to enter into a lease deed with the appellant in respect of the godowns. Before taking over the godowns from the appellant and the execution of a lease agreement, the appellant alleges, there was a joint inspection of the godowns by the appellant, senior officers of the Food Corporation of India and two senior officials of the respondent. The report of this "Committee" listed certain damages to the premises and referred to a decision "that the above damages are to be repaired and missing parts are to be replaced by the respondent in consultation with and in concurrence with the owners of the godowns. The respondents thereafter entered into an agreement of lease dated 12-1-1983 with the appellant. This agreement contained an arbitration clause under which "all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the lease agreement shall be referred to sole arbitration of any person appointed by both the parties." Clause 2 of the lease agreement also provided that the lessee was to maintain the godown and to keep the godown fit in all respects during the term of the tenancy and also keep it insured against fire etc. and in case of any damages, it would be liable for the cost of repair to the damage caused during the period of occupancy by the lessee. The extent of damages was to be assessed by the lessors on the basis of prevailing market rates in respect of material, labour and other contingency charges. This agreement of lease was signed by the Managing Director of the respondent and the appellant.

4. On 22-3-1988, the term of the lease came to an end. According to the appellant, in March, 1988, a joint inspection of the premises was carried out by the appellant along with three officials of the respondent Corporation. The report of this "committee" enumerates a number of items of damage to the premises. On 13-9-1988, the appellant wrote to the respondent calling upon it to pay the damages caused to the godown by the respondent. On 28-12-1989, the appellant sent a lawyers notice claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 4,76,984.55 p. as per details set out in the earlier letter and requiring that, in case the assessment done by the petitioner was disputed, the dispute should be referred to the arbitrator appointed by both the parties as per the agreement of lease. The respondent did not reply to either of the notices given by the appellant.

5. On 1-3-1990, the appellant made an application before the learned District Judge, Satna purporting to be under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the Court be pleased to appoint an arbitrator as per Arbitration Clause and refer the dispute between the parties to the said arbitrator. The respondent filed a reply dated 6-11 - 1990. Ther