ORDER S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a judgment detor's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge, Pilibhit affirming that of the Munsif Pilibhit dismissing his objection u/s 47 CPC against the execution of a decree. The decree-holder Smt. Sunder Kunwer filed a suit for the possession of a small piece of land. She alleged that the Appellant (judgment debtor) had taken illegal possession of this land. She prayed for recovery of possession of this land. It is important to note that in her plaint she made no allegation that the Defendant had illegally raised any structure on the land nor did he asked for a decree for demolition of these structures. 2. When the decree holder applied for execution of the decree, the Appellant raised an objection that the decree could not be executed because the Appellant had raised structures on the land and therefore it was not possible to give her possession without demolishing-the structures but as she had not asked for a decree for demolition she was not entitled to execute the decree which was only for possession of the land. Both the courts below held that a decree for possession impliedly includes a decree for demolition of any structure illegally raised on the land by the judgment debtor. The objection was dismissed by both the courts and the judgment debtor has come here in second appeal. 3. I do not agree with the courts below that a decree for possession automatically or impliedly includes a decree for demolition of any structures that may illegally have been raised by the judgment debtor on the land. A relief for possession of land and one for demolition of structures standing on it are two distinct reliefs and the first does not of itself include the second. A decree for demolition means that the structures shall be demolished by or at the expense of the judgment-debtor. A lessor may be entitled to recover possession of his land but not to the demolition, at the lessee's expense, of any structure raised by the latter during tie period of lease--as for example, where the lease provides that the lessee shall erect structures at his own costs but does not provide for the removal of the structures by him on the termination of the lease. In such a case the lessor is entitled to a decree for possession on the termination of the lease but not to a decree for demolition of the structures at the expense of the judgment debtor. 4. But at the same time I cannot accept the argument of Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant, that a landlord who asks for recovery of possession of the land from a trespasser but not for demolition of structures raised by the latter during his occupation of his land, is disentitled to execute the decree for possession because of the structures standing on the land. This argument implies that a trespasser who raises structures on the land acquires some kind of vested interest in the land which must prevail against a landlord who does not include the relief for demolition in his suit for possession. It also implies that where any structures are raised on the land by the trespassers the land becomes a part of the structures. These absurd results must follow if learned Counsel's argument is accepted. The correct legal position where a landlord files a suit against a trespasser for recovery of possession of his land but not for demolition of any structures raised by the latter and obtains a decree for possession only, is this. As the land belongs to the decree-holder he is entitled to recover it. But whether he shall get the land with or without the structures removed depends upon the judgment debtor, who has illegally brought on the land the material which belongs to him. The decree-holder not having asked for the relief of demolition cannot compel the judgment debtor to demolish and remove the material at his (judgment debtor's) own cost. Under the decree he is entitled to recover possession of his land. The judgment debtor may remove his material before handing over possession to the decree-holder, but if he chooses not to do so the decree holder cannot compel him. However, if the judgment-debtor leaves the land without removing the material he cannot afterwards enter the land and remove it. 5. The courts below relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in K. Arumugham Naicker and Another Vs. Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple, AIR 1954 Mad 985 . Mr. However, if the judgment-debtor leaves the land without removing the material he cannot afterwards enter the land and remove it. 5. The courts below relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in K. Arumugham Naicker and Another Vs. Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple, AIR 1954 Mad 985 . Mr. Ashok Gupta learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that this decision had been dissented from in a judgment of this Court, Municipal Board Meerut v. Beer Singh 1965 A.W.R. 95. But neither of these decisions applies to the facts of the present case. In both these cases the rights of a lessee u/s 108(b) of the Transfer of Property Act were involved. This provision confers on the lessee the right, even after the determination of the lease, to remove at any time whilst he is in possession of the property leased, things which he has attached to the earth. But the case before me does not deal with the rights of a lessee but a trespasser who occupied the land against the wishes of the true owner. Moreover the question in the case before me is not whether a traspasser is entitled to remove the material from the land from which he is being ejected but whether the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the land when he has not asked for a decree for the removal of the structures raised by the trespasser. In none of the cases cited at the bar this question has been considered. In my opinion an owner can recover possession without asking for the demolition and removal of the structures raised by the trespasser against his wishes and the latter cannot rely on the existence of these illegal structures to defeat the owner's fundamental right to recover possession of his property. The structures were the result of a wrongful act and it is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that a person cannot acquire any rights based on his own wrongful act, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary. 6. I dismiss this appeal but modify the decree to this extent that the Respondent decree-holder shall be entitled to recover possession of the land in dispute. 7. The Respondent shall have his costs from the Appellant in all the courts.