BOSTON-Cambridge descended on the State House yesterday, bringing along the incessant battle over rent-control and a slew of city officials, perennial political activists, and John Does wearing party glasses with fake noses and bushy eye-brows attached.

Four bills on rent control sponsored by State Rep. Philip Travis (D. Bristol) were discussed before the House Local Affairs Committee, amidst cheers and jeers by a vociferous audience of members of the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA), which was responsible for drafting the bills, and rent control activists who want to maintain the status quo.

On the political level, much of the discussion focused on the propriety of the way the bills were pushed by SPOA and Travis.

Councillor Jonathan S. Myers, the first speaker on the issue, opened the debate with objections to both the context of the ordinance and the way in which SPOA was dealing with the issue.

"What you are presented with today are tactics. They're not meant to promote discussion," Myers said. "They're merely political acts meant to raise tension in the city."

SPOA President John Natale, who testified yesterday in a prisoner's outfit complete with ball and chain, told the committee, "This is not theater."

Councillor Sheila T. Russell said she supported bringing the issue to the legislature. "The small property owners are in need of relief. With the present make-up of the city council that will not happen," she said.

Natale said Monday that SPOA is now trying to undermine rent control because a bill the group spon- sored last year to abolish it failed. "We want to abolish rent control. We're doing everything in our power to do that-chip away, take a nibble, get it all at once."

In her written testimony, Councillor Alice K. Wolf criticized the legislature's involvement. "It is quite outrageous that a representative from another part of the state is trying to change the operation of rent control in Cambridge," she wrote.

Travis said he was sponsoring the bills because he wanted the property owners to have their say, not in order to hurt the people who live in rent controlled apartments. "I'm not trying to be an ogre and throw people out."

Two of the four bills are currently not being considered by the committee, as they would affect only Cambridge, said Rep. Byron Rushing, the chair of the committee.

Home Rule

This makes them unconstitutional under the home rule provision, which says that any law that has to do with only one city or town must have the approval of that city's or town's legislature.

Most of the testimony by property owners, who could be identified by the SPOA stickers on their lapels, focused on Bill 2260. This bill targets an ordinance which prevents owners from living in their own condominiums if they were converted after August 10, 1979, by making all properties with six or fewer housing units, exempt from rent control.

Many people who are currently illegally occupying their own "ordinance condos" testified anonymously at the hearing, registering as John or Jane Doe and wearing disguises.

While there exists a procedure for applying to the city for an exception from the ordinance, speakers said these were uncommon and that obtaining them entailed great risk.