Some Cambridge residents like rent control; others hate it. But a sizable group of civic leaders and community activists, it seems, love nothing more than to fight about it.

Entering the rent control debate can sometimes be like departing for an alternative, surreal universe, where one little number is reason enough to put one's life on the line--or, if that doesn't work, sue.

Numbers were the topic of debate this week as the long-running argument over imposing limits in the amount landlords can charge shifted to the 10th floor of the Suffolk County Courthouse. It is here that rent control opponents have sued to place a referendum about the contentious issue on the November state ballot.

The anti-rent control lobby has gone to court because the Massachusetts Secretary of State recently ruled that its petition for a referendum lacked the required number of signatures.

The secretary's office said the petition, which was organized by the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, contained only 69,937 valid signatures. That came painfully close to--but ultimately fell short of--the 70,286 signatures required by law.

In the suit, Denise A. Jillson, president of the homeowners coalition, and other plaintiffs argue that they collected 93,000 signatures on more than 14,000 petitions. The plaintiffs say that out of that number, enough were valid to put the referendum on the ballot.

But a group of rent control advocates led by Donald Veach, treasurer of the Cambridge-based Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant Protections, has also sued the secretary of state in an effort to ensure the issue does not hit the state ballot.

Veach's group contends that the secretary of state certified more signatures than were actually valid.

But Jillson and the rent control opponents maintain that 831 signatures were improperly disqualified. These were the signatures of voters who changed addresses or signed with their nicknames.

In addition, 334 signatures appeared on petitions that did not contain the required authorization of registrars in the cities in which they were collected. Rent control opponents argue that these should be counted.

Jillson also challenged a rule that limits the number of signatures that can be counted from each county. The secretary of state disallowed 3,583 signatures which the government said exceeded that limit.

But Judge Martha Sossman upheld the county limit rule this week. The judge, however, also ruled in favor of Jillson's group when she decided to count the 334 signatures from petitions which did not have proper registrar approval.

Burton A. Nadler, an attorney for the rent control advocates, said the judge's ruling on the 334 signatures could be grounds for appeal. But the lawyer also said his opponents might be entitled to an appeal on Sossman's decision to uphold the limits of signatures per county.

And while rent control opponents attempt to find the 400 valid signatures that will out a referendum on the ballot, rent control advocates are also playing a numbers game. They maintain, in fact, that the secretary of state's count is too high to begin with.

The advocates allege that 1,149 signatures are from people who are not registered to vote.