Chaturvedi, J. - (1.)THIS is a petition for revision arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction for not blocking the apertures in the eastern wall of the plaintiff's house situated in Didwanaoli, Lashkar. The windows in the plaintiff's house open towards the defendant's house. The defendant is building a wall which will close these apertures. The suit has been decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court upheld this decision.
(2.)MR . Bhagwanswaroop on behalf of the petitioner raises two points. The first point is that under S. 16, Easements Act, the plaintiff must prove that he enjoyed the access and use of light and air as an easement and as of right for twenty years.
Mr. Bhagwanswaroop contends that it was not proved that the plaintiff enjoyed this easement as of right. He places reliance on Abdul Kayum v. Moji Ram, : A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 334: (23 N.L.R. 117) and Siti Kanta Pal v. Radha Gobinda, : A.I.R. 1929 cal. 542: (56 Cal. 927) for the proposition that long user alone is not sufficient for a finding of an enjoyment as of right. In my opinion the two rulings cited do not apply to the case before me. The Calcutta case was about the easement of drawing water from the tank and the Nagpur case was about the right to have rain and waste water from plaintiff's house pass into a lane. A perusal of S. 15, Easements Act, will show that there are 8 paras in it defining various sorts of easements. The first para deals with the right of access and use of light or air and the words as of right do not appear in this para. I am, therefore unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bhagwanswaroop. Enjoyment of the access and use of light and air through a particular aperture need not be proved as of right in order to create an easement by prescription. Hari v. Mahadeo,, A.I.R. 1921 Nag. 127:, 61 I.C. 569). I agree with the lower Courts that the right to access and use of light or air through the said apertures has become absolute.

(3.)THE next contention is rather important. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to S. 35, Easements Act, which lays down that subject to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act an injunction may be granted to restrain the disturbance of an easement, if an easement is actually disturbed, when compensation for such disturbance might be recovered and S. 33 of the same Act declares that the owner or occupier of a dominant heritage can institute a suit for compensation for the disturbance of the easement where the disturbance has actually caused a substantial damage to the plaintiff.
;