JUDGMENT : 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 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 3 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. (8) 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. 4. The next contention is rather important. Hari v. Mahadeo, a. I. R. (8) 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. 4. The next contention is rather important. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to S. 33, 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. 83 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. 5. Reliance is then placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on Durga Prasad v. Lachmi Narain, a. i. R. (11) 1921 all. 394: (78 I. C. 563) where Kanhaiya Lal, J. held that no damage is considered substantial within the meaning of Ss. 33 and 35, unless it materially diminishes the value of the dominant heritage and interferes materially with the physical comfort of the plaintiff or prevents him from carrying on his accustomed business in the dominant heritage as beneficially as he might have done previous to the disturbance. 6. Each case of an alleged disturbance of an easement of light and air must be decided on its own facts. 7. The trial Court has not given any finding on, and has not applied its mind to the question whether the obstruction of the aperture will have the effect of materially interfering with the access of light and air to the plaintiff's house. I do not find clear evidence on this question or anything in" the judgments of the Courts below to indicate if they had this aspect of the case in their mmd when they decided in favour of granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from blocking the aperture. 8. I would, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and send the case back for a finding on the issue; "Will the closing of the apertures cause substantial damage to the plaintiff within the meaning of S. 33, Easements Act?" 9. 8. I would, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and send the case back for a finding on the issue; "Will the closing of the apertures cause substantial damage to the plaintiff within the meaning of S. 33, Easements Act?" 9. The parties will be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on this issue, if they so desire. The case will then be disposed of according to law. Coats of this revision will abide the result.