Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Ameritech Pub., Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1128, 1129 (Ind.1998). "[Ilt is in the best interest of the public not to restrict unnecessarily persons' freedom of contract." Id. (quoting Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind.1995)). Burkhart freely entered into this lease with Providence's predecessor. In fact, the lease is clearly Burkhart's own form lease. We conclude that the termination of a lease according to the parties' own provisions is not a taking of property. Given the termination of the lease pursuant to Provi-denece's proposed development of the property and our supreme court's opinion in Heslar, we conclude that Burkhart had no interest in the property compensable by the City. See also P.C. Management, Inc. v. Page Two, Inc., 573 N.E.2d 484, 439 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) . We acknowledge another clause in the lease,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  7403 requires compensation for every property interest that is taken in the process
B. holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government
C. holding that a sublessee had no property interest taken by the city
D. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
E. holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.