With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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) (<HOLDING>); see also Albert M. Greenfield & Co., Inc. v.

A: holding that a landlord cannot validly consent to a search of a tenants apartment despite ownership and legal authority to enter the premises
B: holding landlord and tenants obligations mutually dependent
C: holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance
D: holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
B.