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."

But supporters of the home rule rent control petitions argued that since voters of Cambridge, Brookline, and Boston rejected Question 9 they should be allowed to retain some protection.

"The voters of Cambridge wanted a stronger rent control law. That's what they indicated in their vote," said Alice K. Wolf, former mayor of Cambridge.

Wolf remained optimistic that Cambridge's petition would pass the full legislature, but said that in either case the character of the city would change.

"This only protects a very narrow number of people," she said, adding that middle class people would still be displaced and the city would end up with the rich and the very poor.

Wealthier individuals could afford more expensive housing while the poor would require public housing, she added.

Dowds said people close to the legislative process were pessimistic about the chances of the petitions passing.

"That petition has a long way to go," he said.

"Rent control is gone. It's either going to go at a moderate rate of speed or it's going to go immediately," Dowds said. "In either case, it's gone."

The best he was hoping for, he said, was a "semi-orderly termination."