R. Subbiah, J.

1. Application No.1186 of 2012 is filed by the third party to revoke the probate granted in O.P.No.792 of 1998 dated 20.04.2005. Application No.1187 of 2012 is filed to stay the operation of the probate grated in O.P.No.792 of 1998, pending disposal of the application for revocation.

2. The brief facts for disposal of both the applications are as follows:

(a) One Sathrasala Venkatram, who died on 21.1.1998, executed a Will on 05.12.1997, appointing the respondent S. Sharat Babu as an executor. After the demise of the testator, the executor has filed original petition before this Court in O.P.No.792 of 1998 to grant probate. This Court, by order, dated 20.04.2005, allowed the petition as prayed for.

(b) The present applications have been filed by the third party, by name, Shantilal Kothari, who was originally a tenant under the testator Sathrasala Venkatram, stating that he is having a caveatable interest in the estate of late Sathrasala Venkatram since a lease deed was executed by the testator in his favour on 22.01.1997 for 51 years in respect of the property owned by the testator at door No.140, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai-1. As per the terms of the lease, the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month for the first two years and thereafter at Rs.45,000/-for the remaining 49 ears. Pursuant to the lease, the applicant has also parted with Rs.5 lakhs as interest free security deposit refundable at the time of surrender of the premises after the expiry of the lease. As per the terms of the lease, the applicant is entitled to pull down the existing dilapidated structure and erect a new building thereon, namely, ground floor, first floor and third floor at his own cost and thereafter, he is entitled to let out the same to various third parties for rent. By virtue of the said lease agreement, the applicant has also entered into a rental agreement with various tenants, who are occupying shop portions at the suit property. The superstructure erected thereon belonged to the applicant and the land belonged to Sathrasala Venkatram since deceased. But the Sathrasala Venkatram, when the said lease was in force, without any valid cause of action, filed a civil suit against the lessee, the applicant herein, in C.S.No.770 of 1997 for a declaration that he continues to be the owner of the 'A' schedule property and consequential direction to the 1st defendant (the applicant herein) to put the plaintiff (the testator) in possession of the said property and also for injunction restraining the applicant/third party from dealing with the property including demolition and re-construction of the suit property.

(c) It is the further case of the applicant that he is in occupation of the property in his capacity as a contractual lessee pursuant to a valid lease agreement dated 22.01.1997 and in such circumstances, till the expiry of the period, as contemplated under the registered lease deed dated 22.01.1997 up to 21.01.2047, the applicant is legally entitled to be in occupation of the suit property. Though the Sathrasala Venkatram filed a suit as against the applicant for a declaration that he is the owner of the property, he has not questioned or challenged the validity of the lease deed dated 22.01.1997 executed in favour of the applicant. Though suit summons were served on the applicant, he has not filed the written statement and as such, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in the said suit. Hence, the applicant/third party has filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in A.No.3126 of 2006 in the suit, but the said application was dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2006. The applicant preferred O.S.A.No.236 to 238 of 2006 and the same were also dismissed on 02.09.2008. S.L.P. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 07.11.2008. but the application filed by the applicant in A.No.1213 of 2009 in E.P.No.511 of 2008 in the suit under section 47 of CP.C. w