Judgment Barin Ghosh and Ajay Kr.Tripathi JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A contract in writing was entered into by and between the Appellant-Board and the Respondent-Writ Petitioner, whereby and under the Appellant-Board proposed to sell and the Writ Petitioner proposed to purchase a flat at a consideration tentatively fixed at Rs. 67,800/- The sum of Rs, 67,800/- was required to be paid by the petitioner in the manner as was indicated in the contract. Clause 4(a) of the said contract is as follows: "That the total disposal price indicated above is according to the present estimate and hence tentative. Increase in the cost of the construction or development or due to increase in cost of land acquisition due to any decision/ award of Court of law or legislation or due to increase in the cost due to final valuation or calculation or otherwise as per the decision of the Board shall be payable by the settlee either in instalments thereof or in lump sum within the period decided by the Board. The settlee shall under no circumstances be entitled to demand any accounts relating to the cost or question or dispute it and this shall be fixed by the Board in its sole discretion." 3. According to the writ petitioner he paid the sums of moneys he was required to pay under the contract to the Respondent-Board. Despite such payments, the Board made a further demand of Rs. 1,72,942/- from the petitioner by a letter dated 23rd December, 1997. This letter was challenged in the Writ Petition which was decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th September, 2000. The Writ Court held that the condition that the price was tentative and that it could be revised is unfair and unreasonable and such condition cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the Court opined that bereft of the said Clause 4(a) of the contract, which was impliedly struck down, the petitioner was liable to pay only the sum of Rs. 67,800/-, as was mentioned in the contract, in the manner and alongwith such interest, as mentioned in the contract, and that having been paid, the demand raised by the letter dated 23rd December, 1997 is not sustainable. 4. 67,800/-, as was mentioned in the contract, in the manner and alongwith such interest, as mentioned in the contract, and that having been paid, the demand raised by the letter dated 23rd December, 1997 is not sustainable. 4. In a very recent judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Appellant-Board to claim increased price of a flat due to increase in cost of land acquisition and due to increase in cost of construction. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the condition as contained in the contract that the price is tentative and that it can be revised is unfair and unreasonable. 5. In those circumstances we have no other option but to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and accordingly the same is set aside. 6. There is no dispute that the contract contains an arbitration clause. According to us, the claim of the appellant, which was challenged in the writ petition, having been made purportedly under the contract, the same could only be held to be valid or invalid by taking recourse to arbitration and not by initiating writ proceedings. 7. In such view of the matter we wanted to know from the Appellant-Board as to whether it is ready and willing to go before an arbitrator to be appointed by us at a consolidated fee of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the Board at the first instance and, if the Board succeeds before the arbitrator, it, by way of cost of arbitration, shall be entitled to recover that sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Respondent-Writ Petitioner, otherwise that shall be treated as cost of arbitration, to which the learned counsel for the Board agreed on instructions obtained by him in writing from the Appellant-Board. A copy of that writing is kept with the records of this case. 8. At the commencement of hearing of the present appeal, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Writ Petitioner agreed to go before the arbitrator so to be appointed by us. 9. In those circumstances the claim of the Board, as contained in its letter dated 23rd December, 1997, is referred to the sole arbitration of Mr Justice B.K. Roy, Retd. Chief Justice with a request to accept a consolidated fee of Rs. 9. In those circumstances the claim of the Board, as contained in its letter dated 23rd December, 1997, is referred to the sole arbitration of Mr Justice B.K. Roy, Retd. Chief Justice with a request to accept a consolidated fee of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the appellant along with a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator, whereupon the learned arbitrator shall enter upon reference. The learned arbitrator shall give the Appellant-Board appropriate opportunity to file statement of claim justifying the claim contained in the said letter dated 23rd December, 1997 and upon a copy thereof being served upon the writ petitioner-respondent, shall grant appropriate opportunity for filing a counter statement by the writ petitioner-respondent to such statement of claim. Thereupon, after recording such evidence as may be tendered by the parties and in the manner to be decided by the learned arbitrator, the arbitrator shall make and publish his award within a period of four months from the date of his entering upon the reference. In the event the learned arbitrator allowing the claim of the AppellantBoard, he shall in the award include the cost of arbitration at Rs. 20,000/- and direct the same to be paid by the Respondent-Writ Petitioner in addition to the amount to be awarded by the award. In the event claim of the Appellant is not sustained before the learned arbitrator, the cost of arbitration shall be Rs. 20,000/- payable by the appellant and the same having been paid by way of fees, no further cost will be paid by any of the parties. 10. While deciding the disputes inter se the parties, the learned arbitrator shall consider the true and correct meaning of Clause 4(a) of the Agreement and ascertain whether a cost, which has no relationship with acquisition of land and cost of construction, can be included in the final valuation and, if so, whether prior notice thereof is required to be given and whether such notice has been given. The learned arbitrator shall also decide whether by the contract the Board acquired right to include anything and everything as price component while finalising the final price even though no connection thereof had been indicated in the contract and not notified to the Writ Petitioner-Respondent. 11. This disposes of the appeal without any order as to costs.