( 1. ) THIS is a revision by the M. P. Housing Board (judgment-debtor) against the order by which its objections in the proceedings for enforcement of award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act) have been rejected.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the M. P. Housing Board awarded a contract to the respondent/decree-holder on 7-10-1992 for construction of 28 HIG Houses at Kohefiza, Bhopal for Non-Resident-Indians. The contractor was asked to carry out certain works which were not included in the original contract by the Engineer-in-Charge of the work. The contractor as per Clause 13 of the contract was bound to carry out those works. The contractor did those works and completed the construction of the houses. Then arose the dispute for the extra work done by the contractor.

( 3. ) CLAUSE 13 of the Contract provides : "in the event of a dispute the decision of the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the circle shall be final". Clause 29 of the Contract contains the "arbitration clause". The first two paras of this clause are relevant and these are as under :-- "except as otherwise provided in this contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, herein before mentioned as to thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof, shall be referred to the Dy. Housing Commissioner in writing for his decision within a period of thirty days of such occurrence. Thereupon, the Dy. Housing Commissioner shall give his written instructions and/or decision within a period of sixty days of such written request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decision, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such decision or instructions. If the Dy. Housing Commissioner fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within a period of sixty days or mutually agreed time after being requested or if the parties are aggrieved against the decision of the Dy. Housing Commissioner, the parties may within thirty days prefer such dispute/disputes for arbitration to the Addl. Housing Commissioner subject to the jurisdiction and limitations in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Ad-hiniyam, 1983. In case the dispute is within the jurisdiction of Addl. Housing Commissioner he shall then act as sole arbitrator, and he shall pass an award after hearing both the parties, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rule made thereunder for the time being in force. "

( 4. ) THE contractor by his letter dated 30-6-1998 addressed to the Deputy Housing Commissioner invoked the first para of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 29 of the Contract. According to him major changes in the provisions of certain items of work were made by the Engineer-in-Charge and some additional items not covered under the scope of the agreement were ordered to be executed and he in fact executed the same as he was bound to do so but he has not been paid for the extra items of work. He claimed that a dispute has arisen and he requested the Deputy Housing Commissioner to decide the dispute as an arbitrator as per first para of Clause 29, and fix the rates for the works done by him. He made a request for an opportunity of being heard and also to produce evidence. He sent a copy of his letter to the Engineer-in-Charge also.

( 5. ) THE Deputy Housing Commissioner gave opportunity of hearing to the contractor and the Engineer-in-Charge. He gave the "award" on 30-9-1998. He has stated that he conducted the "arbitration" under Clause 29 of the Contract. He expressed the view