V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of Industrial Shed bearing No. 189 situated in Bellur, Village in Bangalore District. He raised loan from the Karnataka State financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ksfc') for the construction of the said shed offering the said property as security. After construction of the shed, the petitioner let-out the same to one M/s. Pagaria Foods Private limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/ -. Since the petitioner committed default in payment of the loan amount, the KSFC seized the shed in question. In those circumstances, the tenant filed W. P. No. 29470 of 1992 in this Court challenging order of KSFC to take over possession of the shed in question. In that writ petition the petitioner herein was also a party as respondent 4. In that writ petition, the tenant agreed to pay the monthly rent of rs. 14,000/- per month to the KSFC directly instead of paying to the petitioner. It was further agreed that the rents so paid by the tenant to ksfc shall be credited to the loan account of the petitioner. In view of that agreement, the said writ petition was disposed of and the shed in question was released back to the tenant. Thereafter, it is admitted by the petitioner himself in Annexure-E addressed to ksfc that the tenant had paid rent only for a period of six months from January to June, 1993 amounting to Rs. 84,000/- and there after he did not pay the rents. Subsequently, the tenant shifted his unit to some other place without paying the arrears of the rent. However, the KSFC credited a sum of rs. 2,28,000/- to the loan account of the petitioner as if rents had been paid by the tenant. Later it was found that the tenant had not paid rent for 17 months from July, 1993 to December, 1994. Realising the mistake committed, the KSFC debited the sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- from the loan account of the petitioner which was earlier wrongly credited as if rents had been received. Thereafter, the KSFC issued the impugned demand notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay in all Rs. 10,28,105. 50. This includes penal interest levied on the petitioner. Realising the mistake committed, the KSFC debited the sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- from the loan account of the petitioner which was earlier wrongly credited as if rents had been received. Thereafter, the KSFC issued the impugned demand notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay in all Rs. 10,28,105. 50. This includes penal interest levied on the petitioner. The same is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition contending that since the KSFC took the responsibility of receiving rents from the tenant, for the defaults committed by the tenant in not paying the rent the petitioner is not liable and that KSFC is responsible for that. ( 2 ) MR. K. Gopal Hegde, learned counsel for KSFC admits the negligence on the part of the officers of KSFC in crediting to the petitioner's loan account the rents not received from the tenant. ( 3 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not responsible for non-payment of rent and that KSFC is responsible, is not acceptable. Admittedly the petitioner is the landlord of the shed let-out to the tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. The KSFC has no relationship except for realisation of its loans as per the agreement. If the tenant fails to pay the rent, KSFC has no right to question the tenant. The petitioner being borrower of loan, is primarily responsible for the repayment of the loan amount. ( 4 ) THE amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- wrongly credited to the account of the petitioner has been rightly debited by KSFC subsequently. This action is nothing but rectifying a mistake. The same is neither arbitrary nor illegal. The petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard. ( 5 ) THE KSFC has not intimated the petitioner about the non-payment of rents by the tenant. There is failure on the part of the KSFC. Therefore, the levy of penal interest on the petitioner from the date of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent upto the date of the impugned demand notice is not justifiable. To that extent the petitioner is entitled for the relief. ( 6 ) ONE of the prayers made by the petitioner is to direct the KSFC to furnish the account extract after giving deduction to rs. 3. 06,000/- and all the arrears of rents, totaling Rs. 5,04,000/ -. To that extent the petitioner is entitled for the relief. ( 6 ) ONE of the prayers made by the petitioner is to direct the KSFC to furnish the account extract after giving deduction to rs. 3. 06,000/- and all the arrears of rents, totaling Rs. 5,04,000/ -. The petitioner is entitled only for waiver of penal interest for the aforesaid period and nothing beyond that. Along with the memo dated 18. 2. 1999, the ksfc has produced the statement of loan account of the petitioner, which is in accordance with the impugned demand notice. ( 7 ) SINCE petitioner is not liable to pay penal interest, the KSFC shall furnish a fresh demand after giving deduction to the penal interest and the amount of Rs. 84,000/- paid by the tenant towards rent for six months. ( 8 ) WRIT petition is disposed of accordingly. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that from the two affidavits filed on behalf of the KSFC along with the memo, it is seen That the officers of KSFC have credited the amounts before realisation of the rents from the tenant. This exhibits the mechanical functioning of the officers/officials of ksfc. The KSFC being a public financial institution, should not have credited the amounts unless full confirmation is received. If the same procedure is continued, ultimately the KSFC will be in dol-drums and parties raising loan from it will be gaining wrongfully on account of such wrong entries. Therefore, it is high time the Managing Director of KSFC to in-struct all its officers and officials to make debit and credit, entries correctly only after proper confirmation. It there is any violation of this, stringent action should be taken against such officers/officials making them personally liable for the losses caused to KSFC due to their negligence and mechanical functioning. The court makes these observations in the interest of KSFC and the public with a view to see that such mistakes should not recur in future. Petition disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .