The state house of representatives approved the "home rule" rent control petitions of Cambridge, Boston, and Brookline yesterday, advancing the cities' attempt to preserve some form of rent control.

If approved by the state senate and signed by governor, the petitions would allow the cities to keep rent control housing beyond January 1, the date set to abolish 25-year-old limits on rents.

The approval, which followed Monday's approval by the house's Joint Committee on Local Affairs, comes three weeks after voters across the state passed ballot Question 9 by a margin of 51 to 49 percent.

Yesterday another brake was placed on the elimination of rent control when a Superior Court judge placed a temporary restraining order on the enactment of five state ballot measures--including Question 9--approved by voters last month (please see related story, page 1).

The home rule petitions must overcome several obstacles before becoming law. They must not only be approved by the full legislature but also override the likely veto of Gov. William F. Weld '66.

R. Philip Dowds, head of the Cambridge Civic Association, which lobbied against Question 9, said he had mixed feelings about the petition's approval.

"I wish there was somehow a way to put a much stronger home rule petition," he said yesterday. "But something is better than nothing."

The current Cambridge petition would gradually phase out rent control by the year 2000. After that only the most vulnerable, including the elderly and physically disabled, would be eligible for rent control housing.

Many Cambridge residents hoped the petition would protect more tenants, but the city council voted in favor of minimal protection so that the petition would have a greater chance of being passed by the state, according to Dowds.

"The legislature has used the state-wide vote as a pretext for eliminating rent control," Dowds said. "It's a hoax and a sham."

Opponents of Question 9, including the Cambridge Civic Association, were "simply out-advertised. It wasn't the will of the people, it was the will of the advertisers," he said.

"If the No-to-Nine [campaign] had a half million dollars, we would have whipped it," he added.

But Salim E. Kabawat, treasurer of the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, which lobbied against rent control and for the ballot initiative, said his side "took the high road" in its advertising campaign while the pro-rent control side campaigned negatively.

Kabawat said Question 9 reflected the "will of the people." Allowing Cambridge, Boston, and Brookline to hang on to some measure of rent control would retract the decision of Massachusetts voters, he said.

"The matter has been closed. Why should they re-open it?" he asked. "This is a case of sour grapes and dead horses."