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. 15, Easements Act, the plaintiff muss prove that he enjoyed the access and use of light and air as an easement and as of right for twenty years.

3. Mr. Bhagwanswaroop contends that it was not proved that the plaintiff enjoyed this easement as of right. He places reliance on Abdul Kayum v. Hoji Ram, A. I. R. (14) 1927 Nag. 334: (23 N. L. R. 117) and Siti Kanta Pal v. Radha Gobinda, A. I. R. (16) 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 fro