عنوان مقاله [English]
By the virtue of the Jurisprudential Rule of Taslit (ownership and mastery of people over their properties), every owner has right to seize and exploit the property he owns except in the cases the law has excluded. (Article 30 of the civil code) Note 24 of article 55 of the Law for Municipalities is one of such exceptions by virtue of which establishing any enterprise in non-commercial districts is forbidden. In the ending section of this article is mentioned that establishing a law firm and such institutions by the owner is not considered as a commercial act. The content of this article specially the ending section has some ambiguities which have led to some problems in practice. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the authors try to answer the following question: does establishing law firm refer to founding a business enterprise by commercial purpose? They have studied the relationship of the act underwritten this article and the one above it. In the next step, the concept of any disagreement with the ending section of the article (owner bond) is investigated and it is proved that they are meaningless. In the proceeding, the concept and instances of the term “non-owner” which is in opposition to the bond term “owner” in the ending section is investigated which means returning the case to the “engineering office” or at least they consider the law-maker’s injunction on the law firm insufficient. In the concluding part of the paper, the judicial procedure and legal thoughts concerning the contents of the article by using basic jurisprudential principles and current regulation prove that law firm could not be considered as a trading office and the lawyer is not a merchant. Thus, establishing a law firm in a non-commercial property by the owner and tenant does not signify its being commercial.