( 1 ) THIS writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. It is contended by Mr. B. B. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Authority fixed the interim rateable value at Rs. 1,50,000. 00- without any basis and it was merely based on surmises and conjectures. He has further contended that the question of parity was also not decided by the Appellate Court. He has further contended that although the Appellate Court has taken into consideration that even after remand the cases are not decided by the Assessing Authority in 8 to 10 years, still the Appellate Court has chosen to remand the case back to the Assessing Authority. ( 2 ) I see force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Appellate Court ought not to have fixed any interim rateable value as the rental value of the property has to be based on certain set formulas known to law. Mindful of the fact that the Assessing Authority even after remanding the cases is not deciding the matter within 8 to 10 years, the best course for the Appellate Court was to adjudicate on the appeal as per law instead of remanding the case back to the Assessing Authority. ( 3 ) I set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Court and remand the case back to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Respondent/mcd is directed not to take any coercive steps in relations to the assessment order for which the appeal has been filed, till the appeal is finally heard and disposed of. ( 4 ) PARTIES to appear before the learned Additional District Judge Mr. R. P. S. Teji at Tis Hazari Courts on 17. 1. 2001. ( 5 ) WITH these observations, petition stands disposed of.