Foreclosure and Expulsion invokes the following laws.
1. A hired a ship from B to transport merchandise from Point 1 to Point 3 for an agreed upon price. Midway; at Point 2, A found a customer to purchase the merchandise and consequently unloaded the ship. A wishes to pay a reduced price commensurate with the distance traveled. Unless B is able to find another fare to pick up the tabs, A must pay the full from Point 1 to Point 3. (If B gains financially from not having to travel all the way to Point 3, A may deduct appropriately.) [Choshen Mishpat 311: 6]
2. A rented an apartment for a year from B, then vacated in the midst of the year with no intention to return. Even if A is willing to pay for the entire term of the lease, B need not keep the apartment vacant until the end of A's rental contract. Instead, B, as the owner of the property, may rent it out to C and charge A the appropriate reduced price.
Similarly, if A did not yet pay for the months he/she did not live in the apartment, B may not require him to do so, if B found new tenants to take over the remainder of the lease; as B did not lose as a result of A vacating early.
However, a scenario where a) A paid for the entire term of the lease, vacated the apartment mid-term b) with no intention to return and c) did not expect someone to take over the lease, raises a fundamental dilemma: Who now owns the usage rights?
This dilemma implicates four questions.
1) Even though B cannot charge A to pay for months he did not use the apartment when B finds replacement tenants, need the landlord return the rent money A already forwarded for the months A will no longer dwell in the apartment?
2) May the landlord rent the apartment to C after A vacates the premises?
3) Are 1 and 2 contingent on each other? Meaning'; may B rent the apartment to C, only if he/she returns the rental money to A, or may B "double dip" by renting the apartment to C even if B is permitted to keep A's money?
4) Does A still retain the right to sublease the apartment to a third party even though A left without knowing that someone in fact would do so?
Sm"a [Choshen Mishpat 316:3] rules that B may keep the A's rental money as well as rent it out to C. Why should it remain empty? Pischei Teshuva [Choshen Mishpat 316: 3] brings dissenting opinions including Ketzos [ibid. 2, see Igros Moshe C.M. I 74 for more] who argues that the usage right still belongs to B and as such A lacks the authority to earn money by marketing the usage rights which belong to A [Choshen Mishpat 316:1].
Application:
From Lakewood to Flatbush may be comparable to a scenario where A paid for the entire term of the lease, yet vacated the apartment mid-term with no intention to return. In addition, it is unclear whose seat Eli took. In light of the dissenting opinions, Rav Moshe Feinstein [Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat I: 74] ruled that the inquirers should split little Eli's fare between Aaron the "landlord" and the "renter". Additionally, Rav Moshe viewed Yona and Levi as partners in Eli's seat and as such, should split the "renters" portion. In terms of dollars and cents, barring the costs of tolls and gas; of the remaining six dollars for one fare from Flatbush to Lakewood, Aaron would take three dollars and Yona and Levi would each take $1.50. (See Pischei Choshen 2:57 for more discussion on this topic.)