Here, the plaintiffs' written lease agreement expired by its own terms on November 30, 2004. The evidence adduced at trial reveals that the plaintiffs remained in possession of the subject premises with the consent of the defendants until January 1, 2005. Further, [*4]the defendants were advised and on notice as to the plaintiffs' date of surrender. It is undisputed that all rent was paid to the defendants through December 2004. Finally, the plaintiffs were in possession of new premises as of January 2005, and the defendants' acknowledged that plaintiffs had surrendered the subject premises by their letter to the plaintiffs dated January 25, 2005 [Defts. Exh. A. In Evid.]. Consequently, the plaintiffs were released from all obligations under the lease agreement with the defendants once the defendants had accepted the plaintiffs' surrender of the premises in early January 2005, and the plaintiffs had no further liability for rent to the defendants. (see, Berkley v. McClue, supra); (see, Hubell v. Van Coenan, supra).