Where did Nanavira Thera deviate from the commentaries I came across that the Ven. sir (http://www.nanavira.org) interpreted the Dependent Origination without the traditional 3 lifetime interpretation. 

Are there other places he deviated? What are they and what was his interpretation? How are the others who hold similar view?
Most of it is available in his Notes on Dhamma, and some more in the Letters. In other words, anyone interested is welcome to do their homework. Some examples:


  Cittavīthi, ... of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga ... is a pure scholastic invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching


...


  ... the erroneous notion of anuloma-gotrabhu-magga-phala, supposed to be the successive moments in the attainment of sotāpatti. It is sometimes thought that the word akālika as applied to the Dhamma means that attainment of magga is followed 'without interval of time' by attainment of phala; but this is quite mistaken.


...


  Phassa, 'contact', is defined ... as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness ... But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word phassa, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.