The Cambridge City Council narrowly rejected a proposal yesterday to provide subsidies low-income and elderly rent control tenants if Question 9--the proposal which would eliminate rent control in Massachusetts--is passed by voters next week.

The otherwise uneventful meeting was interrupted by two unusual events: the entrance of an anti-rent control protester dressed in a six-foot chicken costume, and a sharp criticism by Cambridge's mayor of an editorial in yesterday's Crimson.

After a lengthy debate, the council voted 5-4 to reject Councillor Michael A. Sullivan's proposal to give checks to elderly and low-income tenants if Question 9 passed. The checks would have covered any differences in rent.

The council voted 8-1 on October 17 to oppose Question 9, which would affect Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, the only three cities in the state with rent-controlled housing.

The four councillors affiliated with the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA)--the city's liberal political group--sided against Sullivan's proposal, calling it financially unrealistic and premature.

"There are very few municipalities in the U.S. that run their own subsidy programs," said Councillor Kathleen L. Born. "It's very, very complex."

"I would want to know how we're going to fund this," she added.

"We're saying, eight days before the election, 'We have resources to help people out,'" said Councillor Jonathan S. Myers. "And we don't."

But the four non-affiliated council- lors, including Sullivan, argued the subsidy was a justifiable option if rent control is eliminated.

"This order is an effort to just give another alternative," said Vice Mayor Sheila T. Russell. "It's very important to the elderly and poor of the city."

Even William H. Walsh, the only councillor to favor the abolition of rent control, sided with Sullivan's proposal.

"It's asking the city to provide a subsidy to low-income tenants," Walsh said. "Why shouldn't the city look into that?"

But in an unusual move, Cambridge Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72, who has distanced himself from the CCA, sided with his political foes to oppose the Sullivan proposal.

The mayor said he had been told by City Manager Robert W. Healy that the plan, if it provided a subsidy of $7,500 to each eligible tenant, would bankrupt the city.

"In six months, we would spend $15 million, which is all we have in the bank," the mayor said.

Reeves cast the tie-breaking vote to defeat the proposal.