Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doctrine of ejectment, entry is not a prerequisite to the action, and if the lessee has such interest in the property as gives a present right of possession, it is immaterial whether he has entered into possession before bringing the action. The right of entry, not the entry itself — the right of possession, not actual possession — are the essentials of an action in ejectment.” Ewert v. Robinson, 289 F. 740, 750-51 (8th Cir. 1923). The notion that prior possession by a lessee is necessary to trigger the right of possession is a legal fiction unrelated to our more modern view of a lessee’s contractual rights. See Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272, 405 A.2d 897 (1979) (opinion by Larsen, J.); id., 486 Pa. at 298-299, 405 A.2d at 910 (Roberts, J., joined by Nix and Manderino, JJ., concurring) ; see also Albert M. Greenfield & Co., Inc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance
B. holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
C. holding that a landlord cannot validly consent to a search of a tenants apartment despite ownership and legal authority to enter the premises
D. holding landlord and tenants obligations mutually dependent
E. holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.