was not entitled to any part of the condemnation proceeds. The parties’ lease provides: The parties hereto agree that if the leased premise, or any part thereof, shall be taken or appropriated for public use by any public or quasi-public authority during the term of this lease, that this lease shall terminate as of the date of such appropriation and all condemnation proceeds shall be the sole property of [landlord]; * * *. Korengold considered a similar clause and recognized that [w]ith this type of clause, at least in the absence of a contrary state rule, the tenant has no right which persists beyond the taking and can be entitled to nothing. Korengold, 254 Minn, at 363, 95 N.W.2d at 115-16; see also In re Matter of Minneapolis Cmty Dev. Agency 417 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Minn.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24,1988). But
holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action recognizing when a lease terminates upon condemnation tenant is entitled to no compensation for loss of leasehold interest holding that after township acquired property entered into lease with tenant that was renewable absent notice of termination and terminated lease tenant was not displaced person because tenant will be moving not as a result of the acquisition  of such real property but rather because township having already acquired the property has merely declined to renew the lease quotation omitted holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease holding that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for governments taking of option to renew a lease