The war over Cambridge's most perennially divisive political issue--rent control--heated up last year as landlord groups campaigned for a statewide referendum that would end the policy once and for all.

A few battles have already been settled, some are being waged currently, and more are sure to be fought before one side is victorious in the conflict, which began in Cambridge with the inception of rent control here in the 1960s.

In Massachusetts, only Cambridge, Boston and Brookline still have rent control laws.

Both sides in the dispute have tried to portray themselves as the underdog, fighting for what's right against an evil juggernaut.

The renters call themselves a "ragtag tenants' group" compared to a groups of wealthy landowners with virtually unlimited funds vital to a statewide campaign. They say the end of rent control would lead to skyrocketing rents, which would force many tenants out onto the streets.

Malcolm L. Kaufman, a member of the Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant protections, calls area rents "totally obscene," astronomical," and "extortionist," and asks, "who the hell pays this kind of money for rent?"

But the landlords say their number is few compared to the ranks of the tenants, who control the Cambridge City Council and the state legislature. That, the landlords say, is why they have had to resort to the petition process.

The landlords say that rent control is unfair and amounts to subsidized housing for well-off people--like Cambridge Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72--who live in rent-controlled housing.

"Should [the state] cut back on programs because Cambridge is subsidizing high-income tenants?" asks Denise Jillson, president of the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition.

Both sides seem to be fighting to the death, pursuing every imaginable legal option--and then some.

In December of last year, the Massachusetts Homeowners Coalition, a landlord group, collected 93,000 signatures on a petition to place a referendum on the issue on the November 1994 state ballot.

They submitted the petition to the commonwealth's Secretary of State, who ruled that just under 70,000 of the signatures were valid, leaving the petition 300 short of the required number to place it on the ballot.

But the landlords were not about to give up, and they filed suit against the Secretary of State alleging that too many signatures had been invalidated.

The Campaign for Affordable Housing and Tenant protections, fearing that their initial victory would be overturned, also sued the Secretary of State, arguing that more signatures should have been invalidated.

The tenants have concentrated on keeping the issue off the state ballot. They say they would not be able to raise much money for a Massachusetts-wide campaign.

These two lawsuits were settled by one tedious, seemingly interminable trial in which the judge once asked the parties to meet outside the court-room to resolve some disputes.

The judge put the issue on the ballot, but rent control advocates promptly filed suit in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts against the state Attorney General, who certified the petition and then prepared a summary for placement on the state ballot.

The advocates allege that a ballot referendum would violate the "home rule" provisions of the state constitution, which affirms the right of local communities to govern themselves.

A decision is expected sometime this summer, but the tenants are planning to defend themselves in a statewide campaign.

But even if the referendum passes, the state legislature could vote to overturn it under Massachusetts law. Kaufman, however, says this was unlikely because of the political implications of overturning a voter mandate.

In fact, the tenants might have to return to court to block a referendum's results from being implemented. And that means another messy legal fight to keep rent under control.