JUDGMENT B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holders and is directed against an appellate judgment of A. F. M. Rahman, Esqr., District Judge of Howrah, dated 5th June 1943, affirming an order of the Munsif of Uluberia, dated 29th March 1943, by which he allowed the objections of the judgment-debtor under S. 47, Civil P. C., and dismissed the appellants' application for execution of a decree for cesses. There is no controversy about the facts of this case which lie within a very brief compass. The respondent judgment-debtor holds certain rent-free lands within the ambit of a putni taluk belonging to the appellants, and cesses in respect of these lands are payable to the putnidars under the provisions of the Cess Act (Bengal Act 9 [IX] of 1880). The putnidars got a decree for cesses against the holder of rent-free lands, and they have applied for execution of this decree by attachment and sale of certain movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor raised objections under S. 47, Civil P. C., and his contention, in substance, was that under S. 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, the decree-holders were not competent to attach and sell any property belonging to the judgment-debtor save and except the holding in respect of which the cesses were due. This contention was accepted by the learned Munsif, and the execution started by the decree-holders was dismissed. On appeal, this decision has been affirmed by the District Judge of Howrah and the decree-holders have now come up on appeal to this Court. 2. On hearing the learned advocates on both sides, it seems to us that the view taken by the Courts below is right. The suit in which the decree was made was one for recovery of cesses due on account of rent-free land held by the respondent, and under S. 64A, Cess Act, such arrears may be recovered from the owner, holder or occupier of the land by the same means and process by which the amount might be recovered if it were due on account of rent of a transferable tenure or holding. The cesses were undoubtedly not payable by the rent-free holder to the owner of the tenure on account of use and occupation of the land held by him, but they are to be deemed to be rent for purposes of Ss. The cesses were undoubtedly not payable by the rent-free holder to the owner of the tenure on account of use and occupation of the land held by him, but they are to be deemed to be rent for purposes of Ss. 53 to 68 and 72 to 75 and also of Chap. 14, Bengal Tenancy Act, by virtue of the extended definition of "rent" given in S. 3 (13), Bengal Tenancy Act. As S. 168A has been introduced in Chap. 14, Bengal Tenancy Act, the expression "a decree for arrears of rent" occurring in that section must include a decree for cesses as well which are recoverable as rent under S. 64A, Cess Act, and the provisions of S. 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act, would be attracted when a decree for cesses is put into execution. 3. Mr. Banerjee argues that the definition of rent given in S. 3 (13), Bengal Tenancy Act, (which corresponds to S. 3 (5) of the old Act) is in existence since 1885, whereas S. 168A was introduced by the amending Act of 1940. It is argued that if the intention of the Legislature was that the word "rent" as used in S. 168A should be taken in that extended sense which is given to it in S. 3 (13), the Legislature ought to have indicated its intention in clearer language. We do not think that we can accept this contention as sound. Section 3 (13), Bengal Tenancy Act, expressly refers to Chap. 14 of the Act. After S. 168A was introduced by the amending Act of 1940, it must be taken to be a part of Chap. 14, and if it were the intention of the Legislature that for purposes of S. 168A, the expression "rent" would not bear the extended interpretation that is given to it in para. 2 of S. 3 (13), the Legislature would have made its intention clear by using appropriate words either in S. 168A, or by amending para. 2 of S. 3 (13), Ben. Ten. Act. So long as S. 3 (13) stands as it is, we are bound to say that the expression "a decree for arrears of rent" occurring in any of the sections of Chap. 14, including S. 168A, would cover a decree for money recoverable as rent under the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force. 4. Mr. Act. So long as S. 3 (13) stands as it is, we are bound to say that the expression "a decree for arrears of rent" occurring in any of the sections of Chap. 14, including S. 168A, would cover a decree for money recoverable as rent under the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force. 4. Mr. Banerjee has raised in this connection another question, namely, as liability to pay cess is a personal liability, and cesses do not constitute a first charge on the property as rent does, whether the provisions of Chap. 14, Ben. Ten. Act, can at all be attracted when a decree for cesses is put into execution. We do not think that this question presents any difficulty. Section 5, Cess Act, makes all immovable property situated in any district or part of a district liable to the payment of a road cess and public work cess. This is undoubtedly a personal liability to the Government which is enforced by the provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act, and it is perfectly true that S. 5, Cess Act, by itself does not create any charge on any estate or tenure: vide 30 Cal. 788 Zinnatunnessa Khatun v. Girindra Nath Mukherjee ('03) 30 Cal. 788 and 19 Cal. 783 Shokaat Hossain v. Sasi Kar ('92) 19 Cal. 783. The position, however, is different when under the provisions of Chap. 4, Cess Act, cesses are declared payable by a holder of rent-free land to the owner of an estate or tenure within the ambit of which the lands are situated. As soon as the provisions of Chap. 4 are complied with the holder of an estate or tenure is invested with the legal right to recover cesses payable by the rent-free holder by the same means and by the same process as if it were rent. This would bring into operation the (provision of S. 3 (13), Ben. Ten. Act, and the cesses due under Chap. 4, Cess Act, would constitute a charge upon the rent-free holding and all the provisions of Chap. 14, Ben. Ten. Act, would be applicable in case the cess decree-holder applies for execution of the decree: vide 21 Cal. 722 Kobin Chand v. Bansenath ('94) 21 Cal. 722; see also 16 Cal. 638 Mohesh Chunder v. Umatara Deby ('89) 16 Cal. 638. 14, Ben. Ten. Act, would be applicable in case the cess decree-holder applies for execution of the decree: vide 21 Cal. 722 Kobin Chand v. Bansenath ('94) 21 Cal. 722; see also 16 Cal. 638 Mohesh Chunder v. Umatara Deby ('89) 16 Cal. 638. Our conclusion, therefore, is this that the Courts below were perfectly right in holding that the provisions of S. 168A, Ben. Ten Act, would be applicable when the decree-holder applies for execution of a cess decree. The result is that this appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this Court. No order is necessary on the application and the counter-affidavit. Sharpe, J. 5. I agree.